Re: Topic IPv6

[Alexander Nevalennyy <[e-mail]>]

That is not about politicians and not about tracking peoples.
It is about stopping of anonymous actions of both malefactors and cyber
crime's persons.

I will make Internet-draft and be back as soon as it possible.
Thanks everybody for their opinions.

2016-11-22 1:39 GMT+03:00 Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>:

> One more message, and then this subject header goes into
> my filters.
> On 22/11/2016 01:49, Alexander Nevalennyy wrote:
> ...
> > 1. Denying NAT technology in way of stopping all anonymous action in the
> > Internet.
>
> Meaningless. Many of us here have hated NAT for 20+ years, but we are
> not the protocol police and cannot get rid of it.
>
> > I am not sure how is possible to change different RFC.
>
> Changing RFCs will not get rid of NAT.
>
> > 2. Dividing pool of IPv6 between countries like it done in telephone
> > industry. For example prefix  for Los-Angeles 1213::/16, Moscow 7495::/16
>
> Internet routing goes by topology, not geography, so this is a bad idea.
>
> > 3. Usage SLAAC for all devices making IPv6 address
>
> Some operators prefer DHCPv6 so that they can control host behaviour.
> And in some cases there are other alternatives.
>
> > 4. Making international deals to regulate Internet job (ICANN maybe like
> > regulator and Interpol like central cyber - police)
>
> ICANN is in no sense a regulator; it's a clerical service that allocates
> names and numbers to registries. Apart from that, governance issues are
> way out of the IETF's scope (and have nothing much to do with the IP
> version number).
>
>    Brian
>