Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1458
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Tuesday, October 8 2002          Volume 01 : Number 1458

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 11:57:59 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] FYI: No suspension of voting rights in NC

Alex and all assembly members,

  Thank you Alex for posting this news.  It is also good news as well as

just plain sensible at this juncture or point in time.

Alexander Svensson wrote:

> Dear all,
>
> Names Council Chair Bruce Tonkin has just posted a message
> to the NC list that there will be no suspension of voting
> rights (regarding the NCDNHC, ccTLD and ISP/CP constituencies)
> on 20 Oct 2002.
>
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc11/msg00117.html
>
> The reason for this is that the Names Council is not
> authorized to do this. A statement by ICANN General
> Counsel Louis Touton to this effect is attached to Bruce
> Tonkin's message.
>
> Best regards,
> /// Alexander
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 20:03:02 +0200
From: ADD-CT <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] .ct

Dear members of the GA,

As you may already know, in Catalonia for the past six years, we have 
been seeking approval for ISO 3166 as a prior step towards a later 
application for registration of a new ccTLD .CT for our country 
(Catalonia is an autonomous region of the Spanish State with a 
population of over 6 million and with its own language, culture, and 
institutions, which once constituted a fully sovereign state).

As our Ministry for Industry has not shown any great interest to date 
in submitting the corresponding ISO application, we consider it 
necessary to apply pressure through lobbying and the gathering of 
signatures and support through our website: www.domini-ct.org. Over the 
last six years, we have collected 7.000 demonstrations of support from 
among individuals, companies, institutions, and political parties from 
throughout the world.

- ---

This is my first time here. I hope we can collaborate with you, and 
that you can help us whatever way.

PD. any spanish or catalan speaker here?

Ricard Vaqué
- -------------------------------------------
ADD.CT, Associació en defensa del domini CT
http://www.domini-ct.org

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 18:29:04 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] BC discussion draft on new domain names

Philip,

The BC website indicates:  "Discussion on new domain names" -- There is 
discussion now on the mailing list on a draft paper proposing a 
differentiated expansion of the name space. Your input is needed. 

Unfortunately the link to the draft paper hasn't been working, and the draft 
doesn't seem to appear in the parent directory.  I wrote to your Secretariat 
regarding this matter and, of course, received no reply.  As one of the only 
people that ever reads these BC draft documents, perhaps you could humor me 
by fixing the link?  Apparently none of your members that are involved on 
your mailing list "discussion" have even noticed that the document isn't 
there.  

Or perhaps this is your attempt to honor the requirement of "transparency" :)
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 19:31:16 -0700
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] BC discussion draft on new domain names

Danny and all assembly members, stakeholders or other interested parties,

  Thank you again Danny for this interestingly worded request.  Of course
"Transparency" has never been a Hallmark of the BC, the IPC or for that
matter the ICANN Staff and BOD.  I am fairly sure that the BC in this
instance is only following the ICANN Staff and BOD's example with
respect to "Transparency" or lack there of in this, yet another instance.
I am also sure that we can all unfortunately look forward to this sort
of nonsense again.

  It would be a good idea IMHO if the DOC/NTIA stepped in here
and cleaned this sort of silly nonsense up...  But I suppose that if
wishers were horses, beggars would ride...

[email-masked] wrote:

> Philip,
>
> The BC website indicates:  "Discussion on new domain names" -- There is
> discussion now on the mailing list on a draft paper proposing a
> differentiated expansion of the name space. Your input is needed.
>
> Unfortunately the link to the draft paper hasn't been working, and the draft
> doesn't seem to appear in the parent directory.  I wrote to your Secretariat
> regarding this matter and, of course, received no reply.  As one of the only
> people that ever reads these BC draft documents, perhaps you could humor me
> by fixing the link?  Apparently none of your members that are involved on
> your mailing list "discussion" have even noticed that the document isn't
> there.
>
> Or perhaps this is your attempt to honor the requirement of "transparency" :)
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 21:37:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Baptista <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Overcoming IPv6 Security Threat

Alexander I disagree - these issues of are importance to the GA.

As a member I'm concerned about whats happening to internet protocol
number - the attempted commercialization etc.  So should the membership of
the GA be very concerned - the ASO lists amount to not much more then
window dressing.  the people who these changes will afect are here.

regards
joe baptista

On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Alexander Svensson wrote:

>
> Hello Joe,
>
> this is stuff for the ASO policy mailing list.
> Please stick to DNSO issues on the DNSO list.
>
> Regards,
> /// Alexander
>
> At 12.09.2002 10:37, Joe Baptista wrote:
> >Thanks to everyone who helped out.
> >
> >cheers
> >joe baptista
> >
> >
> >>http://www.circleid.com/articles/2533.asp
> >>
> >>Overcoming IPv6 Security Threat
> >>
> >>September 12, 2002  |  By Joe Baptista
> >>
> >>Technology rags and industry pundits see IPv6 (Internet Protocol version
> >>6) as the future of networking, but Daniel Golding a participant of the
> >>North American Network Operators' Group (NANOG) thinks it's a "solution in
> >>search of a problem". Many others have argued IPv6 is a problem in itself
> >>and it is unlikely the protocol will gain wide acceptance in the short
> >>term.
> >>
> >>IPv6 does solve many of the problems with the current version of IPv4
> >>(Internet Protocol version 4). Its purpose is to expand address space and
> >>fix the IPv4 address depletion problem, which many techies claim, was due
> >>to mismanagement. The industry's goal is to use the very large address
> >>allocation pool in IPv6 to expand the capabilities of the Internet to
> >>enable a variety of peer-to-peer and mobile applications including
> >>cellular phone technology and home networking.
> >>
> >>IPv6, a suite of protocols for the network layer, uses IPv4 gateways to
> >>interconnect IPv6 nodes and comes prepackaged with some popular operating
> >>systems. This includes almost all Unix flavors, some Windows versions and
> >>Mac OS. Some vendors offer upgrades to older operating systems. Trumpet
> >>Software International in Tasmania Australia manufactures a Trumpet
> >>Winsock version that upgrades old Windows 95/98 and NT systems to the
> >>current IPv6 standard.
> >>
> >>IPv6 has suffered bad press over privacy issues. Jim Fleming, the inventor
> >>of IPv8, a competing protocol, sees many hazards and privacy flaws in
> >>existing IPv6 implementations. IPv6 address space in some cases uses an ID
> >>(identifier) derived from your hardware or phone "that allows your packets
> >>to be traced back to your PC or cell-phone" said Fleming. Potential abuse
> >>to user privacy exists as a hardware ID wired into the IPv6 protocol can
> >>be used to determine the manufacturer, make and model number, and value of
> >>the hardware equipment being used. Fleming warns users to think twice
> >>before they buy themselves a used Laptop computer and inherit all the
> >>prior surfing history of the previous user!
> >>
> >>IPv6 uses 128 bits to provide addressing, routing, and identification
> >>information on a computer interface or network card. The 128 bits are
> >>divided into the left 64 and the right 64. Some IPv6 systems use the right
> >>64 bits to store an IEEE defined global identifier (EUI64). This
> >>identifier is composed of company id value assigned to a manufacturer by
> >>the IEEE Registration Authority. The 64-bit identifier is a concatenation
> >>of the 24-bit company identification value and a 40-bit extension
> >>identifier assigned by the organization with that company identification
> >>assignment. The 48-bit MAC address of your network interface card may also
> >>be used to make up the EUI64.
> >>
> >>In the early stages of IPv6 development, Bill Frezza a General Partner
> >>with the venture capital firm, Adams Capital Management warned software
> >>developers that if privacy issues are not properly addressed, the
> >>migration to IPv6 "will blow up in their face"! Leah Gallegos agrees that
> >>while "expanding the address space is necessary the use of the address for
> >>ID and tracking is horrific". Gallegos the operator of the top-level
> >>domain .BIZ and a Director of the Top Level Domain Association cautions
> >>network administrators that they should refuse to implement IPv6 unless
> >>these issues are properly addressed.
> >>
> >>Privacy concerns prompted the creation of new standards, which provide
> >>privacy extensions to IPv6 devices. Thomas Narten and Track Draves of
> >>Microsoft Research published a procedure to ensure privacy of IPv6 users.
> >>Narten, IBM's technical lead on IPv6 and an Area Director for the Internet
> >>Engineering Task Force (IETF), agrees "IPv6 address can, in some cases,
> >>include an identifier derived from a hardware address". But Narten points
> >>out that a hardware address is not required. "In cases where using a
> >>permanent identifier is a problem", said Narten "RFC 3041 addresses should
> >>be used".
> >>
> >>RFC 3041 titled "Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address
> >>Autoconfiguration in IPv6" was published this past January 2001 by the
> >>IETF. It is an algorithm developed jointly by Narten and Draves which
> >>generates randomized interface identifiers and temporary addressees during
> >>a user session. This would eliminate the concerns privacy advocates have
> >>with IPv6.
> >>
> >>Unfortunately RFC 3041 is not widely implemented. But Narten expects major
> >>vendors to incorporate his privacy standard and offered that Microsoft
> >>implemented privacy extensions "and apparently intends to make it part of
> >>their standard stuff". Narten also assisted in the drafting of
> >>recommendations for some second and third generation cellular phones
> >>recently approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering
> >>Group. That document recommends that RFC 3041 be implemented as part of
> >>cellular phone technology but he did not know what direction cell phones
> >>manufacturers were taking. "I suspect that client vendors will generally
> >>implement it because of the potential bad PR if they don't" said Narten.
> >>
> >>Another obstacle raised by NANOG operators is that there is currently no
> >>commercial demand for IPv6 at this time. Dave Israel, a Data Network
> >>Engineer and regular participant on NANOG lists, sees no immediate demand
> >>for IPv6 services. "The only people who ask me about IPv6", said Israel
> >>"are people who have heard something about it from some tech-magazine and
> >>want the newest thing". Israel says he sees no commercial demand for a v6
> >>backbone.
> >>
> >>Daniel Golding, another NANOG participant agrees, "v6 deployment is being
> >>encouraged by some countries, and the spread of 3G (cellular technology)
> >>is helping things along, but we have yet to see really widespread v6
> >>deployments anywhere". Golding sees major backbone networks deploying IPv6
> >>when it makes economic sense for them to do so. "Right now", said Golding
> >>"there is no demand and no revenue upside. I don't expect this to change
> >>in the near future".
> >>
> >>Most on NANOG agree the roadblock seems to be a lack of ISPs that offer
> >>IPv6 services. Stephen Sprunk, a Network Design Consultant with Cisco's
> >>Advanced Services group sees the "greater adoption of always-on broadband
> >>access will be the necessary push" to get IPv6 off the ground. "Enterprise
> >>networks will not be the driver for ISPs to go to IPv6" said Sprunk and
> >>"NAT is too entrenched". Network Address Translation (NAT) is a method of
> >>connecting multiple computers to the Internet (or any other IP network)
> >>using one IPv4 address.
> >>
> >>Vint Cerf senior vice president of architecture & technology at WorldCom
> >>has been using IPv6 for about four years. IPv6 has been a key element for
> >>some of WorldCom's Government customers. Cerf thinks IPv6 supporters have
> >>a lot of work ahead to achieve successful deployment of the protocol. He
> >>expects "that over the next several years we will see a lot of consumer
> >>devices set up to work with IPv6" and "cell phones are likely candidates,
> >>as are radio-enabled PDAs".
> >>
> >>-EOF
> >
> >The dot.GOD Registry, Limited
> >http://www.dot-god.com/
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 19:32:55 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Overcoming IPv6 Security Threat

Dear Dr. Joe and Alexander,

It is completely and directly our responsibility to address these issues.
IPv6 is a dangerous and onerous debacle thrust upon us by people who could not
recognize failure and then when they did, covered it up with lies and deceit.  How
addresses resolve and our security is completely within our purview.
Alexander, who is paying you?  Or are you just ignorant?  How could resolutions of
domain names not be within the GA mandate?  Why don't you just get a IPv6 and
check out your security levels and let someone hack you in ten minutes or monitor
your connection.  Is security of domain names germane to the DNSO?

Yikes!
eric

Joe Baptista wrote:

> Alexander I disagree - these issues of are importance to the GA.
>
> As a member I'm concerned about whats happening to internet protocol
> number - the attempted commercialization etc.  So should the membership of
> the GA be very concerned - the ASO lists amount to not much more then
> window dressing.  the people who these changes will afect are here.
>
> regards
> joe baptista
>
> On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Alexander Svensson wrote:
>
> >
> > Hello Joe,
> >
> > this is stuff for the ASO policy mailing list.
> > Please stick to DNSO issues on the DNSO list.
> >
> > Regards,
> > /// Alexander
> >
> > At 12.09.2002 10:37, Joe Baptista wrote:
> > >Thanks to everyone who helped out.
> > >
> > >cheers
> > >joe baptista
> > >
> > >
> > >>http://www.circleid.com/articles/2533.asp
> > >>
> > >>Overcoming IPv6 Security Threat
> > >>
> > >>September 12, 2002  |  By Joe Baptista
> > >>
> > >>Technology rags and industry pundits see IPv6 (Internet Protocol version
> > >>6) as the future of networking, but Daniel Golding a participant of the
> > >>North American Network Operators' Group (NANOG) thinks it's a "solution in
> > >>search of a problem". Many others have argued IPv6 is a problem in itself
> > >>and it is unlikely the protocol will gain wide acceptance in the short
> > >>term.
> > >>
> > >>IPv6 does solve many of the problems with the current version of IPv4
> > >>(Internet Protocol version 4). Its purpose is to expand address space and
> > >>fix the IPv4 address depletion problem, which many techies claim, was due
> > >>to mismanagement. The industry's goal is to use the very large address
> > >>allocation pool in IPv6 to expand the capabilities of the Internet to
> > >>enable a variety of peer-to-peer and mobile applications including
> > >>cellular phone technology and home networking.
> > >>
> > >>IPv6, a suite of protocols for the network layer, uses IPv4 gateways to
> > >>interconnect IPv6 nodes and comes prepackaged with some popular operating
> > >>systems. This includes almost all Unix flavors, some Windows versions and
> > >>Mac OS. Some vendors offer upgrades to older operating systems. Trumpet
> > >>Software International in Tasmania Australia manufactures a Trumpet
> > >>Winsock version that upgrades old Windows 95/98 and NT systems to the
> > >>current IPv6 standard.
> > >>
> > >>IPv6 has suffered bad press over privacy issues. Jim Fleming, the inventor
> > >>of IPv8, a competing protocol, sees many hazards and privacy flaws in
> > >>existing IPv6 implementations. IPv6 address space in some cases uses an ID
> > >>(identifier) derived from your hardware or phone "that allows your packets
> > >>to be traced back to your PC or cell-phone" said Fleming. Potential abuse
> > >>to user privacy exists as a hardware ID wired into the IPv6 protocol can
> > >>be used to determine the manufacturer, make and model number, and value of
> > >>the hardware equipment being used. Fleming warns users to think twice
> > >>before they buy themselves a used Laptop computer and inherit all the
> > >>prior surfing history of the previous user!
> > >>
> > >>IPv6 uses 128 bits to provide addressing, routing, and identification
> > >>information on a computer interface or network card. The 128 bits are
> > >>divided into the left 64 and the right 64. Some IPv6 systems use the right
> > >>64 bits to store an IEEE defined global identifier (EUI64). This
> > >>identifier is composed of company id value assigned to a manufacturer by
> > >>the IEEE Registration Authority. The 64-bit identifier is a concatenation
> > >>of the 24-bit company identification value and a 40-bit extension
> > >>identifier assigned by the organization with that company identification
> > >>assignment. The 48-bit MAC address of your network interface card may also
> > >>be used to make up the EUI64.
> > >>
> > >>In the early stages of IPv6 development, Bill Frezza a General Partner
> > >>with the venture capital firm, Adams Capital Management warned software
> > >>developers that if privacy issues are not properly addressed, the
> > >>migration to IPv6 "will blow up in their face"! Leah Gallegos agrees that
> > >>while "expanding the address space is necessary the use of the address for
> > >>ID and tracking is horrific". Gallegos the operator of the top-level
> > >>domain .BIZ and a Director of the Top Level Domain Association cautions
> > >>network administrators that they should refuse to implement IPv6 unless
> > >>these issues are properly addressed.
> > >>
> > >>Privacy concerns prompted the creation of new standards, which provide
> > >>privacy extensions to IPv6 devices. Thomas Narten and Track Draves of
> > >>Microsoft Research published a procedure to ensure privacy of IPv6 users.
> > >>Narten, IBM's technical lead on IPv6 and an Area Director for the Internet
> > >>Engineering Task Force (IETF), agrees "IPv6 address can, in some cases,
> > >>include an identifier derived from a hardware address". But Narten points
> > >>out that a hardware address is not required. "In cases where using a
> > >>permanent identifier is a problem", said Narten "RFC 3041 addresses should
> > >>be used".
> > >>
> > >>RFC 3041 titled "Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address
> > >>Autoconfiguration in IPv6" was published this past January 2001 by the
> > >>IETF. It is an algorithm developed jointly by Narten and Draves which
> > >>generates randomized interface identifiers and temporary addressees during
> > >>a user session. This would eliminate the concerns privacy advocates have
> > >>with IPv6.
> > >>
> > >>Unfortunately RFC 3041 is not widely implemented. But Narten expects major
> > >>vendors to incorporate his privacy standard and offered that Microsoft
> > >>implemented privacy extensions "and apparently intends to make it part of
> > >>their standard stuff". Narten also assisted in the drafting of
> > >>recommendations for some second and third generation cellular phones
> > >>recently approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering
> > >>Group. That document recommends that RFC 3041 be implemented as part of
> > >>cellular phone technology but he did not know what direction cell phones
> > >>manufacturers were taking. "I suspect that client vendors will generally
> > >>implement it because of the potential bad PR if they don't" said Narten.
> > >>
> > >>Another obstacle raised by NANOG operators is that there is currently no
> > >>commercial demand for IPv6 at this time. Dave Israel, a Data Network
> > >>Engineer and regular participant on NANOG lists, sees no immediate demand
> > >>for IPv6 services. "The only people who ask me about IPv6", said Israel
> > >>"are people who have heard something about it from some tech-magazine and
> > >>want the newest thing". Israel says he sees no commercial demand for a v6
> > >>backbone.
> > >>
> > >>Daniel Golding, another NANOG participant agrees, "v6 deployment is being
> > >>encouraged by some countries, and the spread of 3G (cellular technology)
> > >>is helping things along, but we have yet to see really widespread v6
> > >>deployments anywhere". Golding sees major backbone networks deploying IPv6
> > >>when it makes economic sense for them to do so. "Right now", said Golding
> > >>"there is no demand and no revenue upside. I don't expect this to change
> > >>in the near future".
> > >>
> > >>Most on NANOG agree the roadblock seems to be a lack of ISPs that offer
> > >>IPv6 services. Stephen Sprunk, a Network Design Consultant with Cisco's
> > >>Advanced Services group sees the "greater adoption of always-on broadband
> > >>access will be the necessary push" to get IPv6 off the ground. "Enterprise
> > >>networks will not be the driver for ISPs to go to IPv6" said Sprunk and
> > >>"NAT is too entrenched". Network Address Translation (NAT) is a method of
> > >>connecting multiple computers to the Internet (or any other IP network)
> > >>using one IPv4 address.
> > >>
> > >>Vint Cerf senior vice president of architecture & technology at WorldCom
> > >>has been using IPv6 for about four years. IPv6 has been a key element for
> > >>some of WorldCom's Government customers. Cerf thinks IPv6 supporters have
> > >>a lot of work ahead to achieve successful deployment of the protocol. He
> > >>expects "that over the next several years we will see a lot of consumer
> > >>devices set up to work with IPv6" and "cell phones are likely candidates,
> > >>as are radio-enabled PDAs".
> > >>
> > >>-EOF
> > >
> > >The dot.GOD Registry, Limited
> > >http://www.dot-god.com/
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 21:00:52 -0500 (EST)
From: Allan Liska <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Overcoming IPv6 Security Threat

Eric and Others,

Please keep in mind that Joe Baptista was laughed off Nanog when he
presented his paper there.  If the network operators for the world's
largest ISPs don't feel there are serious security flaws in IPv6, then
perhaps the work of Mr. Baptista should be viewes as suspect.

allan
- -- 
Allan Liska
[email-masked]
htt://www.allan.org

On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 [email-masked] wrote:

> Dear Dr. Joe and Alexander,
>
> It is completely and directly our responsibility to address these issues.
> IPv6 is a dangerous and onerous debacle thrust upon us by people who could not
> recognize failure and then when they did, covered it up with lies and deceit.  How
> addresses resolve and our security is completely within our purview.
> Alexander, who is paying you?  Or are you just ignorant?  How could resolutions of
> domain names not be within the GA mandate?  Why don't you just get a IPv6 and
> check out your security levels and let someone hack you in ten minutes or monitor
> your connection.  Is security of domain names germane to the DNSO?
>
> Yikes!
> eric
>
> Joe Baptista wrote:
>
> > Alexander I disagree - these issues of are importance to the GA.
> >
> > As a member I'm concerned about whats happening to internet protocol
> > number - the attempted commercialization etc.  So should the membership of
> > the GA be very concerned - the ASO lists amount to not much more then
> > window dressing.  the people who these changes will afect are here.
> >
> > regards
> > joe baptista
> >
> > On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Alexander Svensson wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Hello Joe,
> > >
> > > this is stuff for the ASO policy mailing list.
> > > Please stick to DNSO issues on the DNSO list.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > /// Alexander
> > >
> > > At 12.09.2002 10:37, Joe Baptista wrote:
> > > >Thanks to everyone who helped out.
> > > >
> > > >cheers
> > > >joe baptista
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>http://www.circleid.com/articles/2533.asp
> > > >>
> > > >>Overcoming IPv6 Security Threat
> > > >>
> > > >>September 12, 2002  |  By Joe Baptista
> > > >>
> > > >>Technology rags and industry pundits see IPv6 (Internet Protocol version
> > > >>6) as the future of networking, but Daniel Golding a participant of the
> > > >>North American Network Operators' Group (NANOG) thinks it's a "solution in
> > > >>search of a problem". Many others have argued IPv6 is a problem in itself
> > > >>and it is unlikely the protocol will gain wide acceptance in the short
> > > >>term.
> > > >>
> > > >>IPv6 does solve many of the problems with the current version of IPv4
> > > >>(Internet Protocol version 4). Its purpose is to expand address space and
> > > >>fix the IPv4 address depletion problem, which many techies claim, was due
> > > >>to mismanagement. The industry's goal is to use the very large address
> > > >>allocation pool in IPv6 to expand the capabilities of the Internet to
> > > >>enable a variety of peer-to-peer and mobile applications including
> > > >>cellular phone technology and home networking.
> > > >>
> > > >>IPv6, a suite of protocols for the network layer, uses IPv4 gateways to
> > > >>interconnect IPv6 nodes and comes prepackaged with some popular operating
> > > >>systems. This includes almost all Unix flavors, some Windows versions and
> > > >>Mac OS. Some vendors offer upgrades to older operating systems. Trumpet
> > > >>Software International in Tasmania Australia manufactures a Trumpet
> > > >>Winsock version that upgrades old Windows 95/98 and NT systems to the
> > > >>current IPv6 standard.
> > > >>
> > > >>IPv6 has suffered bad press over privacy issues. Jim Fleming, the inventor
> > > >>of IPv8, a competing protocol, sees many hazards and privacy flaws in
> > > >>existing IPv6 implementations. IPv6 address space in some cases uses an ID
> > > >>(identifier) derived from your hardware or phone "that allows your packets
> > > >>to be traced back to your PC or cell-phone" said Fleming. Potential abuse
> > > >>to user privacy exists as a hardware ID wired into the IPv6 protocol can
> > > >>be used to determine the manufacturer, make and model number, and value of
> > > >>the hardware equipment being used. Fleming warns users to think twice
> > > >>before they buy themselves a used Laptop computer and inherit all the
> > > >>prior surfing history of the previous user!
> > > >>
> > > >>IPv6 uses 128 bits to provide addressing, routing, and identification
> > > >>information on a computer interface or network card. The 128 bits are
> > > >>divided into the left 64 and the right 64. Some IPv6 systems use the right
> > > >>64 bits to store an IEEE defined global identifier (EUI64). This
> > > >>identifier is composed of company id value assigned to a manufacturer by
> > > >>the IEEE Registration Authority. The 64-bit identifier is a concatenation
> > > >>of the 24-bit company identification value and a 40-bit extension
> > > >>identifier assigned by the organization with that company identification
> > > >>assignment. The 48-bit MAC address of your network interface card may also
> > > >>be used to make up the EUI64.
> > > >>
> > > >>In the early stages of IPv6 development, Bill Frezza a General Partner
> > > >>with the venture capital firm, Adams Capital Management warned software
> > > >>developers that if privacy issues are not properly addressed, the
> > > >>migration to IPv6 "will blow up in their face"! Leah Gallegos agrees that
> > > >>while "expanding the address space is necessary the use of the address for
> > > >>ID and tracking is horrific". Gallegos the operator of the top-level
> > > >>domain .BIZ and a Director of the Top Level Domain Association cautions
> > > >>network administrators that they should refuse to implement IPv6 unless
> > > >>these issues are properly addressed.
> > > >>
> > > >>Privacy concerns prompted the creation of new standards, which provide
> > > >>privacy extensions to IPv6 devices. Thomas Narten and Track Draves of
> > > >>Microsoft Research published a procedure to ensure privacy of IPv6 users.
> > > >>Narten, IBM's technical lead on IPv6 and an Area Director for the Internet
> > > >>Engineering Task Force (IETF), agrees "IPv6 address can, in some cases,
> > > >>include an identifier derived from a hardware address". But Narten points
> > > >>out that a hardware address is not required. "In cases where using a
> > > >>permanent identifier is a problem", said Narten "RFC 3041 addresses should
> > > >>be used".
> > > >>
> > > >>RFC 3041 titled "Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address
> > > >>Autoconfiguration in IPv6" was published this past January 2001 by the
> > > >>IETF. It is an algorithm developed jointly by Narten and Draves which
> > > >>generates randomized interface identifiers and temporary addressees during
> > > >>a user session. This would eliminate the concerns privacy advocates have
> > > >>with IPv6.
> > > >>
> > > >>Unfortunately RFC 3041 is not widely implemented. But Narten expects major
> > > >>vendors to incorporate his privacy standard and offered that Microsoft
> > > >>implemented privacy extensions "and apparently intends to make it part of
> > > >>their standard stuff". Narten also assisted in the drafting of
> > > >>recommendations for some second and third generation cellular phones
> > > >>recently approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering
> > > >>Group. That document recommends that RFC 3041 be implemented as part of
> > > >>cellular phone technology but he did not know what direction cell phones
> > > >>manufacturers were taking. "I suspect that client vendors will generally
> > > >>implement it because of the potential bad PR if they don't" said Narten.
> > > >>
> > > >>Another obstacle raised by NANOG operators is that there is currently no
> > > >>commercial demand for IPv6 at this time. Dave Israel, a Data Network
> > > >>Engineer and regular participant on NANOG lists, sees no immediate demand
> > > >>for IPv6 services. "The only people who ask me about IPv6", said Israel
> > > >>"are people who have heard something about it from some tech-magazine and
> > > >>want the newest thing". Israel says he sees no commercial demand for a v6
> > > >>backbone.
> > > >>
> > > >>Daniel Golding, another NANOG participant agrees, "v6 deployment is being
> > > >>encouraged by some countries, and the spread of 3G (cellular technology)
> > > >>is helping things along, but we have yet to see really widespread v6
> > > >>deployments anywhere". Golding sees major backbone networks deploying IPv6
> > > >>when it makes economic sense for them to do so. "Right now", said Golding
> > > >>"there is no demand and no revenue upside. I don't expect this to change
> > > >>in the near future".
> > > >>
> > > >>Most on NANOG agree the roadblock seems to be a lack of ISPs that offer
> > > >>IPv6 services. Stephen Sprunk, a Network Design Consultant with Cisco's
> > > >>Advanced Services group sees the "greater adoption of always-on broadband
> > > >>access will be the necessary push" to get IPv6 off the ground. "Enterprise
> > > >>networks will not be the driver for ISPs to go to IPv6" said Sprunk and
> > > >>"NAT is too entrenched". Network Address Translation (NAT) is a method of
> > > >>connecting multiple computers to the Internet (or any other IP network)
> > > >>using one IPv4 address.
> > > >>
> > > >>Vint Cerf senior vice president of architecture & technology at WorldCom
> > > >>has been using IPv6 for about four years. IPv6 has been a key element for
> > > >>some of WorldCom's Government customers. Cerf thinks IPv6 supporters have
> > > >>a lot of work ahead to achieve successful deployment of the protocol. He
> > > >>expects "that over the next several years we will see a lot of consumer
> > > >>devices set up to work with IPv6" and "cell phones are likely candidates,
> > > >>as are radio-enabled PDAs".
> > > >>
> > > >>-EOF
> > > >
> > > >The dot.GOD Registry, Limited
> > > >http://www.dot-god.com/
> > >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
>
>

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 20:19:37 -0700
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Overcoming IPv6 Security Threat

Get it straight I do not care what Dr. Joe says.  The system is flawed and insecure.
ISPs are bought and sold so their endorsement does nothing to enhance credibility.
I believe that since we have been around since 1993 as an ISP we are entitled to a
position in this matter.
Is Worldcom a largest ISP?  Einstein and Edison and Ford were laughed out of such
pigheaded groups.
OOPs I forgot Bill Gates being laughed at in college.  Nanog is silly.  Oh yeah I forgot
again about the Atomic scientist that were laughed at and ousted by a certain country.

Allan pull your head out of wherever it is, ostrich behaviour is unbecoming.

Eric

Allan Liska wrote:

> Eric and Others,
>
> Please keep in mind that Joe Baptista was laughed off Nanog when he
> presented his paper there.  If the network operators for the world's
> largest ISPs don't feel there are serious security flaws in IPv6, then
> perhaps the work of Mr. Baptista should be viewes as suspect.
>
> allan
> --
> Allan Liska
> [email-masked]
> htt://www.allan.org
>
> On Mon, 7 Oct 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
>
> > Dear Dr. Joe and Alexander,
> >
> > It is completely and directly our responsibility to address these issues.
> > IPv6 is a dangerous and onerous debacle thrust upon us by people who could not
> > recognize failure and then when they did, covered it up with lies and deceit.  How
> > addresses resolve and our security is completely within our purview.
> > Alexander, who is paying you?  Or are you just ignorant?  How could resolutions of
> > domain names not be within the GA mandate?  Why don't you just get a IPv6 and
> > check out your security levels and let someone hack you in ten minutes or monitor
> > your connection.  Is security of domain names germane to the DNSO?
> >
> > Yikes!
> > eric
> >
> > Joe Baptista wrote:
> >
> > > Alexander I disagree - these issues of are importance to the GA.
> > >
> > > As a member I'm concerned about whats happening to internet protocol
> > > number - the attempted commercialization etc.  So should the membership of
> > > the GA be very concerned - the ASO lists amount to not much more then
> > > window dressing.  the people who these changes will afect are here.
> > >
> > > regards
> > > joe baptista
> > >
> > > On Thu, 12 Sep 2002, Alexander Svensson wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hello Joe,
> > > >
> > > > this is stuff for the ASO policy mailing list.
> > > > Please stick to DNSO issues on the DNSO list.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > /// Alexander
> > > >
> > > > At 12.09.2002 10:37, Joe Baptista wrote:
> > > > >Thanks to everyone who helped out.
> > > > >
> > > > >cheers
> > > > >joe baptista
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>http://www.circleid.com/articles/2533.asp
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Overcoming IPv6 Security Threat
> > > > >>
> > > > >>September 12, 2002  |  By Joe Baptista
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Technology rags and industry pundits see IPv6 (Internet Protocol version
> > > > >>6) as the future of networking, but Daniel Golding a participant of the
> > > > >>North American Network Operators' Group (NANOG) thinks it's a "solution in
> > > > >>search of a problem". Many others have argued IPv6 is a problem in itself
> > > > >>and it is unlikely the protocol will gain wide acceptance in the short
> > > > >>term.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>IPv6 does solve many of the problems with the current version of IPv4
> > > > >>(Internet Protocol version 4). Its purpose is to expand address space and
> > > > >>fix the IPv4 address depletion problem, which many techies claim, was due
> > > > >>to mismanagement. The industry's goal is to use the very large address
> > > > >>allocation pool in IPv6 to expand the capabilities of the Internet to
> > > > >>enable a variety of peer-to-peer and mobile applications including
> > > > >>cellular phone technology and home networking.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>IPv6, a suite of protocols for the network layer, uses IPv4 gateways to
> > > > >>interconnect IPv6 nodes and comes prepackaged with some popular operating
> > > > >>systems. This includes almost all Unix flavors, some Windows versions and
> > > > >>Mac OS. Some vendors offer upgrades to older operating systems. Trumpet
> > > > >>Software International in Tasmania Australia manufactures a Trumpet
> > > > >>Winsock version that upgrades old Windows 95/98 and NT systems to the
> > > > >>current IPv6 standard.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>IPv6 has suffered bad press over privacy issues. Jim Fleming, the inventor
> > > > >>of IPv8, a competing protocol, sees many hazards and privacy flaws in
> > > > >>existing IPv6 implementations. IPv6 address space in some cases uses an ID
> > > > >>(identifier) derived from your hardware or phone "that allows your packets
> > > > >>to be traced back to your PC or cell-phone" said Fleming. Potential abuse
> > > > >>to user privacy exists as a hardware ID wired into the IPv6 protocol can
> > > > >>be used to determine the manufacturer, make and model number, and value of
> > > > >>the hardware equipment being used. Fleming warns users to think twice
> > > > >>before they buy themselves a used Laptop computer and inherit all the
> > > > >>prior surfing history of the previous user!
> > > > >>
> > > > >>IPv6 uses 128 bits to provide addressing, routing, and identification
> > > > >>information on a computer interface or network card. The 128 bits are
> > > > >>divided into the left 64 and the right 64. Some IPv6 systems use the right
> > > > >>64 bits to store an IEEE defined global identifier (EUI64). This
> > > > >>identifier is composed of company id value assigned to a manufacturer by
> > > > >>the IEEE Registration Authority. The 64-bit identifier is a concatenation
> > > > >>of the 24-bit company identification value and a 40-bit extension
> > > > >>identifier assigned by the organization with that company identification
> > > > >>assignment. The 48-bit MAC address of your network interface card may also
> > > > >>be used to make up the EUI64.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>In the early stages of IPv6 development, Bill Frezza a General Partner
> > > > >>with the venture capital firm, Adams Capital Management warned software
> > > > >>developers that if privacy issues are not properly addressed, the
> > > > >>migration to IPv6 "will blow up in their face"! Leah Gallegos agrees that
> > > > >>while "expanding the address space is necessary the use of the address for
> > > > >>ID and tracking is horrific". Gallegos the operator of the top-level
> > > > >>domain .BIZ and a Director of the Top Level Domain Association cautions
> > > > >>network administrators that they should refuse to implement IPv6 unless
> > > > >>these issues are properly addressed.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Privacy concerns prompted the creation of new standards, which provide
> > > > >>privacy extensions to IPv6 devices. Thomas Narten and Track Draves of
> > > > >>Microsoft Research published a procedure to ensure privacy of IPv6 users.
> > > > >>Narten, IBM's technical lead on IPv6 and an Area Director for the Internet
> > > > >>Engineering Task Force (IETF), agrees "IPv6 address can, in some cases,
> > > > >>include an identifier derived from a hardware address". But Narten points
> > > > >>out that a hardware address is not required. "In cases where using a
> > > > >>permanent identifier is a problem", said Narten "RFC 3041 addresses should
> > > > >>be used".
> > > > >>
> > > > >>RFC 3041 titled "Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address
> > > > >>Autoconfiguration in IPv6" was published this past January 2001 by the
> > > > >>IETF. It is an algorithm developed jointly by Narten and Draves which
> > > > >>generates randomized interface identifiers and temporary addressees during
> > > > >>a user session. This would eliminate the concerns privacy advocates have
> > > > >>with IPv6.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Unfortunately RFC 3041 is not widely implemented. But Narten expects major
> > > > >>vendors to incorporate his privacy standard and offered that Microsoft
> > > > >>implemented privacy extensions "and apparently intends to make it part of
> > > > >>their standard stuff". Narten also assisted in the drafting of
> > > > >>recommendations for some second and third generation cellular phones
> > > > >>recently approved for publication by the Internet Engineering Steering
> > > > >>Group. That document recommends that RFC 3041 be implemented as part of
> > > > >>cellular phone technology but he did not know what direction cell phones
> > > > >>manufacturers were taking. "I suspect that client vendors will generally
> > > > >>implement it because of the potential bad PR if they don't" said Narten.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Another obstacle raised by NANOG operators is that there is currently no
> > > > >>commercial demand for IPv6 at this time. Dave Israel, a Data Network
> > > > >>Engineer and regular participant on NANOG lists, sees no immediate demand
> > > > >>for IPv6 services. "The only people who ask me about IPv6", said Israel
> > > > >>"are people who have heard something about it from some tech-magazine and
> > > > >>want the newest thing". Israel says he sees no commercial demand for a v6
> > > > >>backbone.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Daniel Golding, another NANOG participant agrees, "v6 deployment is being
> > > > >>encouraged by some countries, and the spread of 3G (cellular technology)
> > > > >>is helping things along, but we have yet to see really widespread v6
> > > > >>deployments anywhere". Golding sees major backbone networks deploying IPv6
> > > > >>when it makes economic sense for them to do so. "Right now", said Golding
> > > > >>"there is no demand and no revenue upside. I don't expect this to change
> > > > >>in the near future".
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Most on NANOG agree the roadblock seems to be a lack of ISPs that offer
> > > > >>IPv6 services. Stephen Sprunk, a Network Design Consultant with Cisco's
> > > > >>Advanced Services group sees the "greater adoption of always-on broadband
> > > > >>access will be the necessary push" to get IPv6 off the ground. "Enterprise
> > > > >>networks will not be the driver for ISPs to go to IPv6" said Sprunk and
> > > > >>"NAT is too entrenched". Network Address Translation (NAT) is a method of
> > > > >>connecting multiple computers to the Internet (or any other IP network)
> > > > >>using one IPv4 address.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>Vint Cerf senior vice president of architecture & technology at WorldCom
> > > > >>has been using IPv6 for about four years. IPv6 has been a key element for
> > > > >>some of WorldCom's Government customers. Cerf thinks IPv6 supporters have
> > > > >>a lot of work ahead to achieve successful deployment of the protocol. He
> > > > >>expects "that over the next several years we will see a lot of consumer
> > > > >>devices set up to work with IPv6" and "cell phones are likely candidates,
> > > > >>as are radio-enabled PDAs".
> > > > >>
> > > > >>-EOF
> > > > >
> > > > >The dot.GOD Registry, Limited
> > > > >http://www.dot-god.com/
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> > Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1458
*************************