Carrier Trick To Save IPv4 Could Help Spammers

Julie188 writes "As public IPv4 addresses dwindle and carriers roll out IPv6, a new problem has surfaced. We have to move through a gray phase where the only new globally routable addresses we can get are IPv6, but most public content we want to reach is still IPv4. Multiple-layers of NAT will be required to sustain the Internet for that time, perhaps for years. But use of Large Scale NAT (LSN) systems by service providers will cause problems for many applications and one of them is reputation filtering. Many security filtering systems use lists of public IPv4 addresses to identify 'undesirable' hosts on the Internet. As more ISPs deploy LSN systems, the effectiveness of these IPv4 filtering systems will be hurt."

Comments

Re:The Only Real Solution

[windcask]

First rule of Slashdot...never be in such a hurry to make a joke as to expose your own ignorance about a topic. IGNORE.

Re:Figures

[Ironchew]

NAT is fine for people who only make outgoing connections; i.e. the passive internet consumer.
It's hell for the rest of us, but hey, since when did the massive media conglomerates ever have the techies' interests at heart?

Re:Figures

[Ironchew]

remember apps both client and server have to support v6, not just the OS

Really badly written programs.
Seriously. I've written stuff in C with the sockets API that is IPv4/v6 agnostic. It's easy to do; there is no excuse for not implementing it.

Can we just stop using IPv4?

[asm2750]

Seriously, IPv6 is there to replace IPv4. Tell everyone who whines 'tough shit' switch over already. If I have to pay an extra 5 dollars a month for a year to my ISP for that to happen then I would. Just stop trying to extend the life of IPv4 when there is a suitable replacement already available.

Re:Figures

[petermgreen]

My ISP (AAISP) actively encourage IPv4 address exhaustion AFAICT.
It's really not in ISPs interests to conserve IPs at this point. The more IPs they can get out of the RIRs now the more IPs they will have to reuse for more lucrative customers later.

Re:Not just spammers

[mewsenews]

When CS tells that player "Sorry, the login where the items were sold/transferred came from one of the IP addresses you normally log in from, the problem's on your end." and the player learns that that's because his ISP is NATing their entire network, he's not going to be happy.

I understand the point you are trying to make, and I agree with you. I just have to be pedantic and point out that currently, for WoW accounts that have been tampered with, it doesn't matter that the activity was on the same IP address.

If it did matter, there would be a lot of guys with neglected girlfriends that would be unable to get their characters restored.

Re:Really?

[afidel]

Actually, we will just ban or greatly increase the spam score of anything coming from these NAT pools just like we do today with dialup and consumer broadband IP pools today. People with real servers will continue to have dedicated IP addresses that aren't behind these NAT pools and so we will judge them individually based on reputation (or lack thereof).