6 ms·
It's a perquisite for tagging individuals. IPv4 not having enough addresses is a good thing. With IPv6 identification (and therefore control) can be down to
by jakeogh 6y ago
It's a perquisite for tagging individuals.
IPv4 not having enough addresses is a good thing.
With IPv6 identification (and therefore control) can be down to the person globally, but IPv4 forces NAT's. The inability to label all the things is a feature. NAT's are borders; they prevent fine grained censorship without larger consequences.
$ zcat /proc/config.gz | grep -i ipv6
# CONFIG_IPV6 is not set
- dogma1138 6y agoNot just tagging many ISPs especially FTTH/P don’t randomize IPv6 addresses so all the IP addresses in your town, neighborhood and even building share the same prefixes and they are hierarchical so by just knowing your IP address one could figure out where you live.
- lrem 6y agoNetwork-wise this is a feature. Having the address space reflect network layout allows for vastly simpler, thus more efficient, routing tables.
- jakeogh 6y agoOh the poor SRAM on those ASIC's.
- lrem 6y ago> Apple tells app devs to use IPv6 as it's 1.4 times faster than IPv4 Do you have better insight than Apple?
- jakeogh 6y agoThe faster excuse. yawn Bandwidth (aka time waiting) is like a gas, it expands to fill all available human tolerance. It's also always there to pretend the major corps care about (insert 15s ad here) it. If you really measure response time, frame by frame, Windows 3.1 is faster than Windows Billion. Process improvements in hardware obviate any trivial 40% benchmark. 400%, maybe, lets talk about it. It's utterly irrelevant compared to what being to tag every item every person ever comes into contact with and the interactions of those items with other items; iterated as many times as desired.
- dogma1138 6y agoI understand that even without efficiencies in routing it makes senses from an operational perspective it doesn’t mean that the privacy implications are quite horrendous.
- efxz 6y agoIPv6 still has NAT. There's public and private IPv6 addresses, same as IPv4. Google building their infrastructure around IPv6 does not have anything with tracking IPv6 users
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jasonvorhe 6y agoIPv6 doesn't have NAT, it has different addresses for global and local scopes, but your OS never translates between these addresses and it doesn't need to keep a table of translations & connections, as you'd have with IPv4 and NAT.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jankeymeulen 6y agoTypically "your OS" doesn't do NAT in IPv4, unless your using a NAT router as your end user device. And surely you can do NAT with IPv6, Google for NAT66, but your average Linux box can do it. It's just almost never needed.
- _-___________-_ 6y ago> IPv6 doesn't have NAT This is widely believed, but it's false. There is nothing whatsoever stopping you doing NAT with IPv6, even though you probably don't need to.
- treysis 6y agoSome use it because it simplifies load balancing if you're thinking network-design in an IPv4-way.
- icedchai 6y agoTechnically you can do NAT with IPv6, just almost nobody ever does it for the reasons you specify. It's pointless to do NAT when there is no address shortage. In the early to mid 90's, nobody did NAT with IPv4 either.
- Faaak 6y agoNearly all modern operating systems use the IPv6 privacy extension, which creates random addresses periodically. Thus the tracking is randomized to the /64 (which is an end customer). This is more or less the same as with IPv4 (without CGNAT)
- jakeogh 6y agoIrrelevant. It's within your subnet, and it's nowhere near 32b. https://www.transtutors.com/questions/how-many-bits-are-needed--674414.htm https://www.transtutors.com/questions/how-many-bits-are-need...
- Faaak 6y agoyeah, like when you have a /32 IPv4 dedicated to your private subnet; it's the same.
- jakeogh 6y agoWhy use IPv6 if you are going to hand out IPv4 addresses? People know why. Even if a few really get 32's, it's PR. The endgame is the same. This is a critical path item for removing the ability to have 2 party value transfers. The power at stake is incalculably valuable.
- detaro 6y agoWhat do you mean by " Even if a few really get 32's, it's PR."? The vast majority of IPv4 connections get an IPv4 IP (= a /32), CGNAT is pretty much only used by providers that don't have another choice and has various downsides for users too.
- jakeogh 6y agoObviously, it's temporary. Handing every possible IPv4 user 2^32 IPv6 addresses is a worse than pointless gesture. It's an 10^9 scale changing of the subject. IPv4 not having enough addresses is why it's valuable. It's impossible to arm band every human with 32b. EDIT: I'm comment limited for the night. @efzx: Seeing "google" in the same sentience with "does not have anything with tracking" is pretty good stuff.
- rmrfstar 6y agoIt feels like Google has a dog in this fight. Why can't Android devices connect to ipv4-only networks?
- ac29 6y agoOf course they can, the majority of networks are IPv4 only.
- netflixandkill 6y agoThat's a little silly, IPv6 privacy addresses are functionally infinite and unless you have a truly huge network behind that NAT then it's not hard to reduce the list of candidates if you have any other information at all. The V6 privacy addresses are typically only rotated daily but the space is so large that it could be done almost per connection of the stack and router could handle that. Realistic rotation limits are probably every few minutes.
- Arnt 6y agoHardly a prerequisite; a lot of people manage to track individuals using cookies (and many other browser-related things). AFAICT the companies that advertise tracking solutions don't mention IP addresses very much.