[MLB-WIRELESS] ip6 vs ip4 stupid q

[Random]

On the issue of DoS attacks, maybe a little arrogantly I would say a
wireless network such as this 'could' be immune to such attacks. DoS
attacks on the Internet are a problem primarily due to one reason;
Insecure / Misconfigured systems. In a smaller more controlled network
(controlled being a _very_ relative term) the primary methods of a DoS
or DDoS attack could be negated. 

For example, Ingress Routing (across _all_ routers) an extremely simple
way to almost completely eliminate any IP Spoofing. Best practice
security again across routers, and hopefully client gateways, would
prevent all but the most sophisticated hacker (ie no script kiddies)
from 0wning enough computers to launch any such attack.

---
Martin Laukkanen (random at sectoid.org)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul van den Bergen [mailto:paul at serc.rmit.edu.au] 
> Sent: Tuesday, 21 May 2002 1:39 PM
> Cc: melbwireless at wireless.org.au
> Subject: Re: [MLB-WIRELESS] ip6 vs ip4 stupid q
> 
> 
> In a sense you are right...  but it is a matter of balance.
> 
> while hard disk read times come down file sizes increase, but usually 
> less than the read speed increases - which is more to do with 
> acceptable 
> delay (human factor) than hardware, but that's a whole other debate.
> 
> in terms of IP addressing, remember that it is a geometric 
> (power of 2) 
> scale.
> the key here is to realise that adding a single extra digit 
> doubles the 
> address range but only increases the file size by one bit per 
> entry and 
>  the search time linearly with the word length.
> IPv6 (128 bit) is some 4 times longer than IPv4 (32 bit).  it is 
> designed to be future resistant. Most computers are we 
> already have 64 
> bit computers (ie. use a 8 byte word), how long before we get 128 
> buswidth computers? 10 years?)
> however, wtih that many addresses (i think) every square meter of the 
> earths surface could have as many addresses as are available 
> in IPv4 for 
> the whole globe.
> 
> who'd have thougth 10 years ago that we'd use that many addresses....
> 
> DoS atacks are dificult to track because of loss of routing 
> information. 
>  for example.  IPv6 would be no more difficult.  I seem to 
> recall that 
> IPv6 has 2 components, a logical part and a MAC like part (2 
> x 64 bit) 
> so a DoS attacker could be ID'd by the MAC part....  O'course 
> I could be 
> rihgt out with this bit = speculation.
> 
> On 05/21/02 12:40 PM, rick wrote:
> 
> >ok, due to the DOS of oz.org i came to the idea,
> >
> >if you had a ip6 system wouldnt it be HARDER to find the people 
> >responcible?
> >
> >i mean if we had a ip1/122 system then there would only be 2 
> ip's and 
> >if one person got DOS'd u would know it was the other person, add 
> >7billion ip's and thats a big stack of hay
> >
> >this also goes for hacking and wouldnt ignore files have to 
> be bigger 
> >due to the poossible extra 6 digdets(sp?)
> >
> >back when i was a kid 80 meg hdd's could have so many games 
> installed 
> >on them, games got bigger, os's got bigger (some excluded that arnt 
> >made by
> >windows)
> >
> >so isnt this doing the big loop, we need bigger cpu's and 
> hard drives 
> >becouse the files are getting bigger but we want the same 
> read time for 
> >the whole file, but then there are to many computers for the 
> ip's there 
> >for a new system gets made with a bigger file needed there 
> for we need 
> >bigger cpu's and hard drives
> >
> >not starting a flame i was just curious
> >
> >
> >To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
> >with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Dr Paul van den Bergen
> SERC
> goofey:bulwynkl
> paul at serc.rmit.edu.au
> +613 9925 1624 (Phone)
> +613 9925 5699 (Fax)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
> with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message
> 
> 

To unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo at wireless.org.au
with "unsubscribe melbwireless" in the body of the message