4 ms·

Or IPv6, right?

• wmf 18y ago
  IPv6 and IPSec are orthogonal. Despite persistent myths to the contrary, IPv6 is not encrypted by default.
  • aggieben 18y ago
    I couldn't find a more authoritative source on very short order, but FWIW, here's the TLDP (http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Linux+IPv6-HOWTO/chapter-encryption-authentication.html http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Linux+IPv6-HOWTO/chapter-encryption-au...) Unlike in IPv4, encryption and authentication is a mandatory feature of IPv6. Those features are normally implemented using IPsec (which can be also used by IPv4). Seems to me that if support for encryption is mandatory for IPv6, even if it's not on by default, using that somehow would be a better route than writing your own New Thing.
    • huhtenberg 18y ago
      Their support in IPv6 is mandatory, while their use is not.
    • wmf 18y ago
      What does "mandatory" mean? What happens if you don't implement it? I agree that the Pirate Bay should join forces with the IETF BTNS effort that is already underway, but this is still orthogonal to IPv4/IPv6.
      • aggieben 18y ago
        The essence of IPSec is a mandatory feature of IPv6. I don't see how this could mean anything other than "packets don't have to be encrypted by default, but encrypted packets must be allowed to be sent and received at any time". That makes IPv6 very much not orthogonal to the topic at hand. What I'm trying to get to is this: why are they trying to figure out how to encrypt the internet when they can just use IPv6 (presuming that existing implementations support all the "mandatory" features)? The only rational answer I can come up with off the top of my head is if they think governments will have backdoors for transparently observing the traffic unencrypted, but that wasn't mentioned in the article as a rationale for anything.