some time ago we already discussed that there's no killer application that would push the ipv6 deployment forward.
[dreamy mood on]
1. If EU governments would declare that copyrighted content sharing over ipv6 network is completely legal, then we get immediately a huge demand. It could be limited in time to, say, 5 years.
2. With the introduction of ipv6, there's a chance to replace our poor old SMTP with something more protected from spamming. I wonder if anyone has done anything in this direction. I guess everyone is going to use the same delivery mechanisms as in ipv4, but isn't that wrong?
[dreamy mood paused]
Stanislav Sinyagin wrote:
some time ago we already discussed that there's no killer application that would push the ipv6 deployment forward.
[dreamy mood on]
- If EU governments would declare that copyrighted content sharing over ipv6 network is
completely legal, then we get immediately a huge demand. It could be limited in time to, say, 5 years.
Useless, and even if it was not legal, already done on a very grand scale. Fixed your subject for you btw.
- With the introduction of ipv6, there's a chance to replace our poor old SMTP with
something more protected from spamming. I wonder if anyone has done anything in this direction. I guess everyone is going to use the same delivery mechanisms as in ipv4, but isn't that wrong?
How exactly would an IP protocol protect against spam (layer 7 / content) ?
No killer apps there. The only sole true killer app of IPv6: connect everything as you got enough IP addresses.
Greets, Jeroen
On 10.11.2009, at 14:43, Jeroen Massar wrote:
Stanislav Sinyagin wrote:
some time ago we already discussed that there's no killer application that would push the ipv6 deployment forward.
[dreamy mood on]
- If EU governments would declare that copyrighted content sharing
over ipv6 network is completely legal, then we get immediately a huge demand. It could be limited in time to, say, 5 years.
Useless, and even if it was not legal, already done on a very grand scale. Fixed your subject for you btw.
good call with the subject fix!
- With the introduction of ipv6, there's a chance to replace our
poor old SMTP with something more protected from spamming. I wonder if anyone has done anything in this direction. I guess everyone is going to use the same delivery mechanisms as in ipv4, but isn't that wrong?
There was a fair bit of discussion around the topic of reducing spam from IPv6 enabled relays recently on the mailop list. Check out the archives there for more.
Chris
Jeroen,
----- Original Message ----
From: Jeroen Massar jeroen@unfix.org To: Stanislav Sinyagin ssinyagin@yahoo.com Cc: swinog@swinog.ch Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 2:43:39 PM Subject: Dreaming of anarchy (Was: killer app for IPv6)
Stanislav Sinyagin wrote:
some time ago we already discussed that there's no killer application that
would
push the ipv6 deployment forward.
[dreamy mood on]
- If EU governments would declare that copyrighted content sharing over ipv6
network is
completely legal, then we get immediately a huge demand. It could be limited
in time to, say,
5 years.
Useless, and even if it was not legal, already done on a very grand scale. Fixed your subject for you btw.
it actually would motivate people who use P2P today to move to a more legal side.
- With the introduction of ipv6, there's a chance to replace our poor old
SMTP with
something more protected from spamming. I wonder if anyone has done anything
in this direction.
I guess everyone is going to use the same delivery mechanisms as in ipv4, but
isn't that wrong?
How exactly would an IP protocol protect against spam (layer 7 / content) ?
If you read carefully, I dream of a new application-level protocol instead of SMTP. Anyway transition to ipv6 requires some significant IT effort, so this could be combined with upgrading their mail servers to some hypothetically new mail transfer protocol.
Stanislav Sinyagin wrote:
Jeroen,
----- Original Message ----
From: Jeroen Massar jeroen@unfix.org To: Stanislav Sinyagin ssinyagin@yahoo.com Cc: swinog@swinog.ch Sent: Tue, November 10, 2009 2:43:39 PM Subject: Dreaming of anarchy (Was: killer app for IPv6)
Stanislav Sinyagin wrote:
some time ago we already discussed that there's no killer application that
would
push the ipv6 deployment forward.
[dreamy mood on]
- If EU governments would declare that copyrighted content sharing over ipv6
network is
completely legal, then we get immediately a huge demand. It could be limited
in time to, say,
5 years.
Useless, and even if it was not legal, already done on a very grand scale. Fixed your subject for you btw.
it actually would motivate people who use P2P today to move to a more legal side.
How exactly would it do that? People using P2P (and don't forget NTTP and various other methods) for downloading illegal (aka stuff that is copyrighted) content do so because they don't want to pay for the content.
Lowering the pricing and making that content available from the copyright owners is the only way to solve that problem.
And still then there will be people who will not want to pay anyway...
- With the introduction of ipv6, there's a chance to replace our poor old
SMTP with
something more protected from spamming. I wonder if anyone has done anything
in this direction.
I guess everyone is going to use the same delivery mechanisms as in ipv4, but
isn't that wrong?
How exactly would an IP protocol protect against spam (layer 7 / content) ?
If you read carefully, I dream of a new application-level protocol instead of SMTP.
That is all not on the IP level.
Anyway transition to ipv6 requires some significant IT effort, so this could be combined with upgrading their mail servers to some hypothetically new mail transfer protocol.
Nice dream, not happening, for the same reason why IPv6 PI exists.
Only way to make that happen is to build it and get enough operators convinced that they have more power that way than what they currently have.
Also note that there is nothing wrong with SMTP itself, it is the mail setups that are broken and are able to do spamming. The bigger problem there being that abuse is not properly handled/resolved.
Greets, Jeroen
* on the Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 03:01:44PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
How exactly would it do that? People using P2P (and don't forget NTTP and various other methods) for downloading illegal (aka stuff that is copyrighted) content do so because they don't want to pay for the content.
Stop right there.
Nobody is downloading "illegal content". It's the UPloading aka sharing of copyright-protected content without a proper license which is illegal.
Don't parrot propaganda.
Cheers Seegras
----- Original Message ----
From: Peter Keel seegras@discordia.ch
Nobody is downloading "illegal content". It's the UPloading aka sharing of copyright-protected content without a proper license which is illegal.
if I'm not mistaken, in some European countries it's already illegal to just download copyrighted material.
Peter Keel wrote:
- on the Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 03:01:44PM +0100, Jeroen Massar wrote:
How exactly would it do that? People using P2P (and don't forget NTTP and various other methods) for downloading illegal (aka stuff that is copyrighted) content do so because they don't want to pay for the content.
Stop right there.
Nobody is downloading "illegal content". It's the UPloading aka sharing of copyright-protected content without a proper license which is illegal.
Depends completely on country. Nevertheless, even though in Switzerland the downloading might be illegal, the having of content that you didn't pay proper licensing/copyright fees for is still illegal... to put it simple: if the cops run into your house with a court order there is no way for you to prove that you got that data purely by 'downloading' or that you bought a stack of the stuff from somebody...
Greets, Jeroen
ROFL !
Or you force sex sites to use exclusively v6. Although this would probably lead into some name change: istead of IPvSix is gonna be IPvSex...
:-)
Sorry Stanislav for the duplicate...
-----Original Message----- From: swinog-bounces@lists.swinog.ch [mailto:swinog-bounces@lists.swinog.ch] On Behalf Of Stanislav Sinyagin Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 10:59 AM To: swinog@swinog.ch Subject: [swinog] killer app for IPv6
some time ago we already discussed that there's no killer application that would push the ipv6 deployment forward.
[dreamy mood on]
1. If EU governments would declare that copyrighted content sharing over ipv6 network is completely legal, then we get immediately a huge demand. It could be limited in time to, say, 5 years.
2. With the introduction of ipv6, there's a chance to replace our poor old SMTP with something more protected from spamming. I wonder if anyone has done anything in this direction. I guess everyone is going to use the same delivery mechanisms as in ipv4, but isn't that wrong?
[dreamy mood paused]
_______________________________________________ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.425 / Virus Database: 270.14.58/2493 - Release Date: 11/09/09 19:40:00
This e-mail, any associated files and the information contained in them are confidential and is intended for the addressee(s) only. If you have received this message in error please notify the originator and delete the email immediately. The unauthorised use, disclosure, copying or alteration of this message is strictly forbidden. E-mails to and from the company are monitored for operational reasons and in accordance with lawful business practices. Any opinions expressed are those of the individual and do not necessarily represent the views of the company. The company does not conclude contracts by email and all negotiations are subject to contract. We make every effort to maintain our network free from computer viruses but accept no responsibility for any viruses which might be transferred by this e-mail.
Guazzoni Daniele, CH wrote:
[see below, you might want to solve your DNS setup, especially the part of having wrong NS in delegation and in-zone and then having the two NS's in the same /29 or /24 routed...]
ROFL !
Or you force sex sites to use exclusively v6. Although this would probably lead into some name change: istead of IPvSix is gonna be IPvSex...
You mean http://www.ipv6porn.co.nz ?(*)
Greets, Jeroen
* = yes it is actually SFW, just not SFE (Safe For Ears ;)
--
"Guazzoni Daniele, CH" Daniele.Guazzoni@audatex.ch
audatex.ch. 3600 IN NS ns2.audatex.net. audatex.ch. 3600 IN NS ns1.audatex.net. ;; Received 75 bytes from 194.146.106.10#53(f.nic.ch) in 2 ms
audatex.ch. 3600 IN MX 10 audatex1.cleanmail.ch. audatex.ch. 3600 IN MX 10 audatex2.cleanmail.ch. audatex.ch. 3600 IN NS ns2.audatex.net. audatex.ch. 3600 IN NS ns3.audatex.net. audatex.ch. 3600 IN NS ns1.audatex.net. audatex.ch. 3600 IN NS ns2.init7.net. ;; Received 225 bytes from 194.11.169.141#53(ns2.audatex.net) in 17 ms
Something broken there...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Guazzoni Daniele, CH wrote:
ROFL !
Or you force sex sites to use exclusively v6. Although this would probably lead into some name change: istead of IPvSix is gonna be IPvSex...
Umm.!! or just move to New Zealand then.. :-)
- -gaurab
----- Original Message ----
From: "Guazzoni Daniele, CH" Daniele.Guazzoni@audatex.ch
ROFL !
Or you force sex sites to use exclusively v6. Although this would probably lead into some name change: istead of IPvSix is gonna be IPvSex...
forcing will not work, we all know that. The users have to be attracted by some new possibilities which they didn't have with ipv4.
Free and completely legal movie downloads and spam-free email could be such a driver.
What else? Everything else we already have with ipv4, why bother buying new modems, tweaking settings on my windows PC, spending hours on support lines? :)
Stanislav Sinyagin wrote:
forcing will not work, we all know that. The users have to be attracted by some new possibilities which they didn't have with ipv4.
Free and completely legal movie downloads and spam-free email could be such a driver.
How does that work on IPV6 anyway? I read that RBLs will be dead in IPV6-land, due to the fact that the address-space can't be packed in a database anymore.. Currently, RBLs are an important part of our spam-defence.
What else? Everything else we already have with ipv4, why bother buying new modems, tweaking settings on my windows PC, spending hours on support lines? :)
People love to do that, apparently. Why else would there exist so much literature around those subjects? ;-)
Rainer
Rainer Duffner wrote: [..]
How does that work on IPV6 anyway? I read that RBLs will be dead in IPV6-land, due to the fact that the address-space can't be packed in a database anymore..
The person who writes that does not realize how much easier it becomes.
RBLs will simply take a scheme of:
Register in db a max of 5 spamming IPs in the database per /64, "" "" "" 50 spamming /64's per /48 "" "" "" 500 spamming /48's per /32
The '5' is variable of course. Too much spam, just block the whole /32 unless they clean it up. Verrrryy easy.
Heck for that matter similar system could be employed for IPv4:
Register in db a max of 5 spamming IPs in the database per /24, "" "" "" 50 spamming /24's per ASN
Tada, block out the whole ASN when it hits the threshold. Then again, there won't be much mail coming out of there in those cases.
Also, politically all /48's should be registered in WHOIS, which is of course a good thing. It seems though that there is no enforcement there and most ISPs don't care at all though.
Currently, RBLs are an important part of our spam-defence.
You do mean as a scoring method I hope...
What else? Everything else we already have with ipv4, why bother buying new modems, tweaking settings on my windows PC, spending hours on support lines? :)
People love to do that, apparently. Why else would there exist so much literature around those subjects? ;-)
Over the last couple of years I have seen zillions of people who did Bsc, Msc, and even PhD's on the subject of IPv6.... very few with actual original content though...
For that matter, sometimes there are cool things (see http://www.ipv6council.de/contest/winners.html), and from what I know there will be a 2010 contest starting in December with some awesome prizes, so keep an eye on: http://www.ipv6council.de/contest/ and of course don't be shy and submit something cool.
Greets, Jeroen
Jeroen Massar schrieb:
Rainer Duffner wrote: [..]
How does that work on IPV6 anyway? I read that RBLs will be dead in IPV6-land, due to the fact that the address-space can't be packed in a database anymore..
The person who writes that does not realize how much easier it becomes.
RBLs will simply take a scheme of:
Register in db a max of 5 spamming IPs in the database per /64, "" "" "" 50 spamming /64's per /48 "" "" "" 500 spamming /48's per /32
The '5' is variable of course. Too much spam, just block the whole /32 unless they clean it up. Verrrryy easy.
Heck for that matter similar system could be employed for IPv4:
Spamhaus does that, AFAIK.
Register in db a max of 5 spamming IPs in the database per /24, "" "" "" 50 spamming /24's per ASN
Tada, block out the whole ASN when it hits the threshold. Then again, there won't be much mail coming out of there in those cases.
Also, politically all /48's should be registered in WHOIS, which is of course a good thing. It seems though that there is no enforcement there and most ISPs don't care at all though.
Currently, RBLs are an important part of our spam-defence.
You do mean as a scoring method I hope...
Yes, but we also block. Mostly dynamic IPs and stuff on the swinog/IX-RBL. On my own mailserver, I block all Asian IPs ;-)
Rainer
Rainer Duffner wrote: [..]
You do mean as a scoring method I hope...
Yes, but we also block. Mostly dynamic IPs and stuff on the swinog/IX-RBL.
On my own mailserver, I block all Asian IPs ;-)
Well, then this should make your firewall a lot happier I guess:
8<----------------------------------- wget -O - http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv6-unicast-address-assignments/ipv6-unicas... grep APNIC | awk '{print $1}'
2001:0200::/23 2001:0C00::/23 2001:0E00::/23 2001:4400::/23 2001:8000::/19 2001:A000::/20 2001:B000::/20 2400:0000::/12 ---------------------------------->8
Do realize that that also includes Australia, and a lot of other Asian countries as APNIC covers a lot more.
But yes, much simpler to block on /32 boundaries. Though I really do not see why one would want to block the countries where great tech comes from. Just use an RBL, and solely use it for scoring... (and do SMTP-REJECT-AT-DATA of course)
Greets, Jeroen
Jeroen Massar wrote:
Though I really do not see why one would want to block the countries where great tech comes from. Just use an RBL, and solely use it for scoring
Really useful stuff such as rbldnsd does not yet support IPv6 for listings.
/Per
----- Original Message ----
From: Rainer Duffner rainer@ultra-secure.de
How does that work on IPV6 anyway? I read that RBLs will be dead in IPV6-land, due to the fact that the address-space can't be packed in a database anymore.. Currently, RBLs are an important part of our spam-defence.
I mean, drop the current mail transfer protocol completely and design something new.
With obligatory certificates or some fancy DNS entries, or whatever. I don't know what it is, but it's the right time to introduce it :)
Developing the details of the solution is a bit different type of work than we're doing here in this list. But it's the perfect place for brainstorming and throwing crazy ideas :)
Stanislav Sinyagin wrote:
----- Original Message ----
From: Rainer Duffner rainer@ultra-secure.de
How does that work on IPV6 anyway? I read that RBLs will be dead in IPV6-land, due to the fact that the address-space can't be packed in a database anymore.. Currently, RBLs are an important part of our spam-defence.
I mean, drop the current mail transfer protocol completely and design something new.
With obligatory certificates or some fancy DNS entries, or whatever. I don't know what it is, but it's the right time to introduce it :)
I guess you have never ever read: http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html
Developing the details of the solution is a bit different type of work than we're doing here in this list. But it's the perfect place for brainstorming and throwing crazy ideas :)
SwiNOG is not that place IMNSHO.
If you want to do protocol work, I guess you read up first, then figure out what this thing called the IETF is and possibly the IRTF, then gain some operational experience, figure out what the MAAWG is, and then proceed from there....
Greets, Jeroen
well, I'm not crazy to develop a new ultimate spam killer from scratch :)
but those groups don't seem to propose something new either.
I'm just telling that SMTP is not the right protocol for email delivery:
-- why do client-to-server and server-to-server have to be the same protocol on the same TCP port? These are completely different tasks with different domains of control, so they have to be two different protocols.
-- there's no obligatory identity check. Well, most ISPs have SMTP authentication for users, but on server2server path, there's none.
-- With wide spread of patent-free cryptography algorithms, why aren't the digital certificates obligatory?
... and so on.
I just say that now it's the only chance to deploy something new, as IPv6 deployment is already something new. There won't be another chance for ditching some old rusty legacy stuff :)
----- Original Message ----
From: Jeroen Massar jeroen@unfix.org
----- Original Message ----
From: Rainer Duffner
How does that work on IPV6 anyway? I read that RBLs will be dead in IPV6-land, due to the fact that the address-space can't be packed in a database anymore.. Currently, RBLs are an important part of our spam-defence.
I mean, drop the current mail transfer protocol completely and design
something new.
With obligatory certificates or some fancy DNS entries, or whatever. I don't
know
what it is, but it's the right time to introduce it :)
I guess you have never ever read: http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html
Developing the details of the solution is a bit different type of work than
we're
doing here in this list. But it's the perfect place for brainstorming and
throwing
crazy ideas :)
SwiNOG is not that place IMNSHO.
If you want to do protocol work, I guess you read up first, then figure out what this thing called the IETF is and possibly the IRTF, then gain some operational experience, figure out what the MAAWG is, and then proceed from there....
Lets keep this "brief":
Stanislav Sinyagin wrote:
well, I'm not crazy to develop a new ultimate spam killer from scratch :)
http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html#programmer-12
but those groups don't seem to propose something new either.
Wow, you where able to read the IETF, IRTF and MAAWG lists in such a short time?
I'm just telling that SMTP is not the right protocol for email delivery:
http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html#senior-IETF-member-5
-- why do client-to-server and server-to-server have to be the same protocol on the same TCP port? These are completely different tasks with different domains of control, so they have to be two different protocols.
Why would you want two different ones?
You do realize that the Internet is a network of networks, and that there is no separation between users and server eh?
-- there's no obligatory identity check. Well, most ISPs have SMTP authentication for users, but on server2server path, there's none.
http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html#programmer-6 http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html#programmer-7
-- With wide spread of patent-free cryptography algorithms, why aren't the digital certificates obligatory?
http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html#programmer-8
... and so on.
I just say that now it's the only chance to deploy something new, as IPv6 deployment is already something new. There won't be another chance for ditching some old rusty legacy stuff :)
http://www.rhyolite.com/anti-spam/you-might-be.html#programmer-12
Lets say that I just suggest you start reading a lot more first ;)
Greets, Jeroen
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 03:27:03PM +0000, Andy Davidson wrote:
Stanislav Sinyagin wrote:
some time ago we already discussed that there's no killer application that would push the ipv6 deployment forward.
Errr, more addresses.....
Wait until there's no more v4 left. Bang. Killer app.
Oh please, I hear this argument since years and it will just not happen. Instead of a killer app we should look for an IPv6 killer. It would make the internet a much better place without this clumsy fat and badly over-designed protocol and it would make an end to all this stupid threads.
Claudio Jeker wrote:
On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 03:27:03PM +0000, Andy Davidson wrote:
Stanislav Sinyagin wrote:
some time ago we already discussed that there's no killer application that would push the ipv6 deployment forward.
Errr, more addresses.....
Wait until there's no more v4 left. Bang. Killer app.
Oh please, I hear this argument since years and it will just not happen. Instead of a killer app we should look for an IPv6 killer. It would make the internet a much better place without this clumsy fat and badly over-designed protocol and it would make an end to all this stupid threads.
One size does not fit all....
You are btw always enticed to write up a good document containing all the 'clumsy fat' and 'bad' things and pass that to the IETF as a draft and possibly better push it as an Informational RFC so that the next round of IPng comes up those considerations are taken into account...
Greets, Jeroen
-
Andy Davidson -
Chris Meidinger -
Claudio Jeker -
Gaurab Raj Upadhaya -
Guazzoni Daniele, CH -
Jeroen Massar -
Per Jessen -
Peter Keel -
Rainer Duffner -
Stanislav Sinyagin