IPv6 vs. surveillance
re: IPv6 vs. surveillance
@bjarni @rah You started by saying:
> Do they realize that the default, expected outcome when you no longer need #NAT and have a virtually unlimited address space, is to just assign every new device a fixed address for life?
And that's just not how Windows, macOS, iOS and many flavors of Linux work this side of 2010.
From what I understand, ISPs generally hand out prefixes of 64 bits or less and aren't involved in the lowest 64 bits, so it's not up to them unless they make it up to them. I don't know how mobile phones have their IPv6 addresses allocated, maybe it's worse there.
You are correct that the need for NAT forced ISPs to hide the identities of consumer devices and IPv6 allows them not to. But it's not the default expected outcome.
> Do they realize that the default, expected outcome when you no longer need #NAT and have a virtually unlimited address space, is to just assign every new device a fixed address for life?
And that's just not how Windows, macOS, iOS and many flavors of Linux work this side of 2010.
From what I understand, ISPs generally hand out prefixes of 64 bits or less and aren't involved in the lowest 64 bits, so it's not up to them unless they make it up to them. I don't know how mobile phones have their IPv6 addresses allocated, maybe it's worse there.
You are correct that the need for NAT forced ISPs to hide the identities of consumer devices and IPv6 allows them not to. But it's not the default expected outcome.
@clacke @deutrino @tastytea @edavies @rah I think we're quibbling about motives, really.
The fact that historically, static and predictable allocation was the first default strategy kinda proves my point: It is the expected outcome, given the capabilities of the technology.
People then deviated from that, due to privacy concerns, which is great. I hope that remains the norm.
But it's a deviation which requires (or required) effort; the "low energy" state for the tech is fundamentally trackable. It's also the only state that allows people to realize the full capabilities of the technology (p2p networks, stable servers enywhere).
I'm predicting #IPv6 will, for various reasons, revert to that low energy state more often than we'd like.
The fact that historically, static and predictable allocation was the first default strategy kinda proves my point: It is the expected outcome, given the capabilities of the technology.
People then deviated from that, due to privacy concerns, which is great. I hope that remains the norm.
But it's a deviation which requires (or required) effort; the "low energy" state for the tech is fundamentally trackable. It's also the only state that allows people to realize the full capabilities of the technology (p2p networks, stable servers enywhere).
I'm predicting #IPv6 will, for various reasons, revert to that low energy state more often than we'd like.
@clacke @22decembre @deutrino @edavies @rah @tastytea Nope!
Lower energy state: static allocation using a fixed algorithm based on other attributes (e.g. mac). This avoids the need for a stateful DHCP, which is a major win for administration and reliability.
And the stable address means p2p type apps work better.
You may have a point about efficiency of address space usage... but the IPv6 address space is so large that I don't think people care much.
Again, that's why this kind of static allocation was the default approach until people realized the privacy downsides. Anyone who has other concerns which (to them) outweigh privacy, will converge back towards this approach.
(You're welcome to disagree of course, I feel I'm now repeating myself and inclined to just let it go.)
Lower energy state: static allocation using a fixed algorithm based on other attributes (e.g. mac). This avoids the need for a stateful DHCP, which is a major win for administration and reliability.
And the stable address means p2p type apps work better.
You may have a point about efficiency of address space usage... but the IPv6 address space is so large that I don't think people care much.
Again, that's why this kind of static allocation was the default approach until people realized the privacy downsides. Anyone who has other concerns which (to them) outweigh privacy, will converge back towards this approach.
(You're welcome to disagree of course, I feel I'm now repeating myself and inclined to just let it go.)
re: IPv6 vs. surveillance
Would their users notice? Probably not.
In any case, please fuck off: "Keep up" is not a remotely polite response.