[ih] DMARC [was "Father of e-Marketing"]

[Andrew G. Malis]

There is no reason to ever phase out IPv4 with private addresses. The
biggest issue with IPv4 is the lack of new routable address space, which we
have with IPv6. So backbones will become first dual-stack and then
IPv6-only, tunneling IPv4 as necessary (T-Mobile USA is an example of the
latter, see
https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/deploy360/2014/case-study-t-mobile-us-goes-ipv6-only-using-464xlat/
). As Brian says, interworking works so well that there's really no reason
to sunset v4 at the edge even after the core is completely v6-only. The
real flag day will be when global BGP route distribution becomes V6-only.

Cheers,
Andy


On Wed, Jun 5, 2019 at 9:10 PM Brian E Carpenter <
brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 06-Jun-19 12:22, Bernie Cosell wrote:
> > On 5 Jun 2019 at 18:32, Chuq Von Rospach wrote:
> >
> >> Short answer: there is no engineering effort that will succeed trying
> >> to
> >> make that happen (*cough* IPv6 *cough*)
> >
> > That reminds me: what happened to the IPv4 apocalypse?  Is there a plan,
> yet, for
> > phasing out IPv4?
>
> The plan is to let it die a natural death. That will take a lot of years.
> In fact, if the coexistence techniques now in use continue to work, it may
> be effectively infinite.
>
>     Brian
>
> >
> >> .... you solve nothing, unless your theoretical
> >> gateway can magically figure out the bad guys and block them. Which,
> >> in
> >> practice, is what's already been done with tools like DMARC but
> >> backported into butressing SMTP,
> >
> > I've gotten confused about this DMARC.  I didn't think it had *anything*
> to do
> > with blocking bad guys, but little more than protecting the "reputation"
> of the
> > good guys.  That is, the only thing I can see that it does is prevent
> the bad guys
> > from "masquerading" as a good guy, but that only leaves about 200
> million other
> > source-host-names they can forge to [or with cooperative registries,
> crank out
> > new, similar-to-real host-sounding host names ad infinitum.   It makes
> life easier
> > for some of the ISPs that used to look like _they_ were sending spam,
> but it
> > doesn't seem to affect the spammers.
> >
> > And it has the side effect of kinda breaking mailing lists [as we
> discovered with
> > Vint's email].  Help me understand how DMARC slows down the bad guys.
> >
> >   /Bernie\
> >
> >             Bernie Cosell
> >        bernie at fantasyfarm.com
> > -- Too many people; too few sheep --
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______
> > internet-history mailing list
> > internet-history at postel.org
> > http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> > Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
> >
> _______
> internet-history mailing list
> internet-history at postel.org
> http://mailman.postel.org/mailman/listinfo/internet-history
> Contact list-owner at postel.org for assistance.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://elists.isoc.org/pipermail/internet-history/attachments/20190606/79fb7584/attachment.htm>