[nycbug-talk] WiFi use liability. . .

[Ray]

On Fri, Apr 22, 2005 at 01:35:22AM -0400, Isaac Levy wrote:
> Yeah, the sheer numbers of unique addresses is useful, but 
> additionally, to my understanding, IPV6 routing is designed to maintain 
> state of the source-ip address across routers, whereas the entire 
> reason that IPV4 spoofing is possible is that IPV4 routing only pays 
> attention to the destination-ip address- not both.
> 
> Additionally, to my basic understanding, there is a dynamic chunk of an 
> IPV6 address space which can be modified at the transport layer in a 
> myriad of ways as packets traverse various networks- with unlimited 
> uses.
> 
> So, in a roundabout manner, I'm stating that basic IPV6 routing again 
> makes it very difficult to use an open AP for illegal uses, as well as 
> *finally* providing a framework at both transport and application 
> layers for folks like us to come up with all sorts of new and 
> interesting ways of dealing with illegal uses.

So Criminal connects to Friendly's AP, gets a unique IPv6 from
Friendly, does something illegal which gets traced back to Criminal
_but_ Criminal runs away afterwards.  One hop less from Friendly's
AP.  How does Police know that Friendly didn't use a certain computer
with Criminal's MAC to do illegal things?  I understand that IPv4
would make it seem like illegal things are coming from the AP itself,
which I'm assuming to be a single IP doing NAT or something; however,
the traffic still originates from your IPv6 block.  So how does
IPv6 protect people like you and me who want to openly share their
AP?

-Ray-