Re:A Digital Rumor Should Never Lead to a Police Raid
by mikeash on Thursday September 22, 2016 @02:27PM
(#12558986)
NAT isn't the only or even the most important source of errors here. The article cites two examples, one where imprecise IP location information was being represented as precise, and one where a Tor exit node was mistaken as the actual originator. Neither one would have been fixed by using IPv6.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:A Digital Rumor Should Never Lead to a Police Raid
by snuxoll on Thursday September 22, 2016 @04:26PM
(#12560067)
Well, location will be fixed to an extent with IPv6. All you need to do is contact the ISP that owns the appropriate /48 or whatever they were given, ask them the address of the customer with said /64 and there you go. Of course, this is the same thing they should already be doing with v4, carrier-grade NAT is fairly uncommon for anything but mobile use except in Asian countries.
Still, you can't tie an IP address to a specific person or computer, v4 has NAT to contend with and privacy extensions with v6 (which Microsoft and Apple use by default, most Linux distributions do as well) - so regardless if you can get the physical location where that IPv4 address or IPv6 prefix is assigned it does you no good on determining who was actually behind that address (unsecured wifi or easy to crack passwords, malware, the list goes on).
Re:A Digital Rumor Should Never Lead to a Police Raid
by mikeash on Thursday September 22, 2016 @07:35PM
(#12561227)
The first example isn't due to an inability to get the location, but using a source of data that didn't have it, and didn't adequately explain that fact. It'll happen just as easily with IPv6.