Hi, Fred, > I'm not a security guru, and will step aside instantly if someone > with those credentials says I'm wrong. However, from my perspective, > the assertion that IPv6 had any security properties that differed > from IPv4 *at*all* has never made any sense. It is essentially a > marketing claim, and - well, we all have marketing departments. The problem probably is that this sort of claim has been made in supposedly-technically-savvy forums. Many, if not most, (supposedly) technical reports on IPv6 security assert that "IPv6 provides improved security as a result of *" (where "*" is usually "mandatory IPsec support", but may also be "security not being an add-on, but rather carefully thought during the design of the protocol", etc.) These claims are very usual e.g. in IPv6 Task Forces circles/documents/papers/reports. (IIRC, there was one of such documents published by the North American IPv6 Task Force). The recent EU IPv6 security paper seems to assume that IPsec deployment will increase dramatically as a result of IPv6 deployment. And even parts of the recent NIST report on IPv6 secure deployment assumes "improved security".... > In the scope of things, wh does having one of out of the many needed > tools make IPv6 different than IPv4, especially given that the > indicated tool is present in both IPv4 and IPv6 implementations? > > Scratch-a-my-head. I don't see it. Nor do I ;-) Thanks! Kind regards, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: fernando@xxxxxxxxxxx || fgont@xxxxxxx PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf