31–40 of 89 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your router has a firewall, external computers can't just send packets to the internal addresses. NAT is not a firewall.
So IPv6 firewall rules are common now for consumer routers?
Second, you get the same security benefits by having a firewall that denies outbound connections not already established.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So IPv6 firewall rules are common now for consumer routers?
First, nothing is common for consumer IPv6 routers, they're practically non-existent. Second, you get the same security benefits by having a firewall that denies outbound connections not already established.
I find DJB's take on this interesting: https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html EDIT: Dan has many excellent points, but I'd like to quote my favorite: The IPv6 designers made a fundamental conceptual mistake: they designed the IPv6 address space as an alternative to the IPv4 address space, rather than an extension to the IPv4 address space. Indeed, what were they thinking! It's certainly an undeniable fact that IPv6 ad…
All these proposals I've seen appear to assume that extended addresses start being distributed only after every or almost every host and router in the whole world had all of its software upgraded to understand extended addresses. But that's not realistic, since without being able to actually use it, there would be no incentive to modify every single piece of network-facing software and hardware to be able to use extended addresses. It's a Catch-22.
I find DJB's take on this interesting: https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html EDIT: Dan has many excellent points, but I'd like to quote my favorite: The IPv6 designers made a fundamental conceptual mistake: they designed the IPv6 address space as an alternative to the IPv4 address space, rather than an extension to the IPv4 address space. Indeed, what were they thinking! It's certainly an undeniable fact that IPv6 ad…
Now that you have to buy IPv4 addresses at around $10 for a single address, the game has changed.
With carrier grade NAT, content has to slowly migrate to IPv6 for geo-location reasons. Any content that sees a high amount of abuse also has to avoid CGN.
Once big parties like google, facebook, etc. have a lot of traffic on IPv6, it stops making sense for them to invest in IPv4. So they will try to pressure ISPs into offering IPv6. Likewise, if an ISP sees that big content providers are on IPv6, then it stops making sense to invest in IPv4. Pressuring smaller content providers to offer IPv6.
And then IPv4 joins the ranks of IPX, NetBIOS, Apple Talk. Some pockets may continue to exists, but the rest of the world has moved on.
I find DJB's take on this interesting: https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html EDIT: Dan has many excellent points, but I'd like to quote my favorite: The IPv6 designers made a fundamental conceptual mistake: they designed the IPv6 address space as an alternative to the IPv4 address space, rather than an extension to the IPv4 address space. Indeed, what were they thinking! It's certainly an undeniable fact that IPv6 ad…
Such a missed opportunity.
It's still relatively easy to get IPv4 blocks for a buck or two per IP through auction houses.
I find DJB's take on this interesting: https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html EDIT: Dan has many excellent points, but I'd like to quote my favorite: The IPv6 designers made a fundamental conceptual mistake: they designed the IPv6 address space as an alternative to the IPv4 address space, rather than an extension to the IPv4 address space. Indeed, what were they thinking! It's certainly an undeniable fact that IPv6 ad…
One thing I never understood in these proposals: how would two computers, one with only an extended address and the other with only an IPv4 address, talk to each other? Or two computers with extended addresses, but with a single router in the middle of their path which doesn't understand extended addresses? All these proposals I've seen appear to assume that extended addresses start being distributed only after every…
Via a NAT router that talks v4 on one side and v6 on the other.
I find DJB's take on this interesting: https://cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html EDIT: Dan has many excellent points, but I'd like to quote my favorite: The IPv6 designers made a fundamental conceptual mistake: they designed the IPv6 address space as an alternative to the IPv4 address space, rather than an extension to the IPv4 address space. Indeed, what were they thinking! It's certainly an undeniable fact that IPv6 ad…
Unfortunately my perception is that IPv6 deployment is stalled (due to inaction by ISPs). In my company we have recently dismantled some of our IPv6 infrastructure because it became apparent that ubiquitous v6 connectivity was not coming any time soon (e.g. we have locations served by Charter/Spectrum, and they have no IPv6 and no plan to deploy it). We've instead deployed a private IPv4 overlay network between our s…
I don't think that perception is accurate. Google's IPv6 tracker shows continual progress: https://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/statistics.html (with the expected bumps around weekends and holidays) It's not a fast process, but I don't see any evidence it is stalled.