[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public whois?
- Subject: Why do some providers require IPv6 /64 PA space to have public whois?
- From: mureninc at gmail.com (Constantine A. Murenin)
- Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 21:45:47 -0800
I personally don't understand this policy. I've signed up with
hetzner.de, and I'm trying to get IPv6; however, on the supplementary
page where the complementary IPv6 /64 subnet can be requested (notice
that it's not even a /48, and not even the second, routed, /64), after
I change the selection from requesting one additional IPv4 address to
requesting the IPv6 /64 subnet (they offer no other IPv6 options in
that menu), they use DOM to remove the IP address justification field
("Purpose of use"), and instead statically show my name, physical
street address (including the apartment number), email address and
phone number, and ask to confirm that all of this information can be
submitted to RIPE.
They offer no option of modifying any of this; they also offer no
option of hiding the street address and showing it as "Private
Address" instead; they also offer no option of providing contact
information different from the contact details for the main profile or
keeping a separate set of contact details in the main profile
specifically for RIPE; they also offer no option of providing a RIPE
handle instead (dunno if one can be registered with a "Private
Address" address, showing only city/state/country and postal code; I
do know that with ARIN and PA IPv4 subnets you can do "Private
Address" in the Address field); they also don't let you submit the
form unless you agree for the information shown to be passed along to
RIPE for getting IPv6 connectivity (again, no IPv6 is provided by
default or otherwise).
Is this what we're going towards? No probable cause and no court
orders for obtaining individually identifying information about
internet customers with IPv6 addresses? In the future, will the
copyright trolls be getting this information directly from public
whois, bypassing the internet provider abuse teams and even the most
minimal court supervision? Is this really the disadvantage of IPv4
that IPv6 proudly fixes? I certainly have never heard of whois
entries for /32 IPv4 address allocations!
Anyhow, just one more provider where it's easier to use HE's
tunnelbroker.net instead of obtaining IPv6 natively; due to the
data-mining and privacy concerns now. What's the point of native IPv6
connectivity again? In hetzner.de terms, tunnelbroker.net even
provides you with the failover IPv6 address(es), something that they
themselves only offer for IPv4!
Is it just me, or are there a lot of other folks who use
tunnelbroker.net even when their ISP offers native IPv6 support?
Might be interesting for HE.net to make some kind of a study. :-)