181–190 of 201 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but they probably have a bunch of probes along the lines of "if you see any traffic in these ranges on the public internet, raise all the alarms," which is arguably a kind of usage in its own way.
Can someone troll them by spoofing addresses and find out?
IPv4 address utilization is incredibly low. For example, consider 44.0.0.0/8 - it's sitting around almost entirely unallocated. UCSD Caida uses it for their network telescope (pretending to use it for amateur radio) and won't give it back. Just look at how dark it is: https://benjojo.co.uk/internet-2018.png (from https://blog.benjojo.co.uk/post/scan-ping-the-internet-hilbe... ) Discussion on r/amateurradio - https://…
The argument that we should expend a lot of effort (technical, legal, and otherwise) to reclaim a dozen /8s and start making them part of the global routing table has been pretty thoroughly debunked by ARIN, RIPE and APNIC. They are instead focused on getting people to use v6.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you have redundant power supply at home, redundant internet connection? Keeping your own server up and running at home is unreliable and annoying. That's all besides the point. When you want to share a file with someone while you are both working on it, say, there is no need for a "server". IP is perfectly fine for transfering a file from your machine to theirs. When you want to talk to someone over the net, the…
We are talking about IPv6 and possibilities to directly access machine where some vulnerable service might be exposed by misconfiguration. If you have remote code execution vulnerability service listening in that service it is really bad. Even pro people forget to close their database on servers sometimes, cannot think what weird stuff might be running on normal users machines. I did not even touched running untruste…
That is no different than with IPv4. If you have a stateful firewall, that isn't possible. If you don't, it is.
> Even pro people forget to close their database on servers sometimes, cannot think what weird stuff might be running on normal users machines.
Which is why you should have a stateful firewall. A NAT does not add anything to that.
> I did not even touched running untrusted code by user because that is not in the scope of discussion. It is insecure with whatever the network configuration will be.
It is very much in scope of the discussion, as every single end user does it. No matter how great their firewall is, you just send them a link to a website, and that website now gets to execute Javascript code on the inside of the firewall, with more or less direct access to all the insecure services supposedly protected by the firewall. Including even stuff only listening on localhost, which wouldn't be reachable directly even without a firewall. If you want to do a mass-scale attack, you serve that code through an advertising network.
So, you actually have to secure the services anyway, even a firewall is insufficient to protect vulnerable services on end-user networks.
> I do not know how you can connect to device behind NAT without setting up tunnel to it. But I might be wrong, point me to some resource please?
By sending a packet addressed directly to the internal address, which your ISP can do, anyone who compromises your ISP's edge router can do, and more often than not your neighbours can do when your ISP fails to properly isolate customers on layer 2.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Trumpet Winsock?
Consider that when Trumpet Winsock was a third-party IP add-on for Windows 3.1, classic MacOS already had IP support built-in. Ironically around that time Microsoft was selling Xenix ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix ) which did support it.
Even in developed countries IPv6 is barely deployed (my UK ISP - BT - pretends that they rolled it out but half of the time my modem tells me IPv6 is not availabled until I force it to reconnect, and no sign of IPv6 on mobile networks). Was looking at whether it was more economical to buy a small address block vs rent it from a datacentre. A /24 address block seems to cost around $4,000 upfront but then you need to p…
Support for IPv6 is weird. Comcast's IPv6 implementation is rock solid and faster than IPv4 most of the time. I've been running publicly accessible IPv6 HTTP hosts over it for several years now. The last two Motorola Modems I've had came with IPv6 support and were provisioned by Comcast out of the box. Access Points from D-Link will autoconfigure via SLAAC but DNS has to be hardcoded. It's 2018 and yet Ubiquiti's Uni…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
privacy is not the issue. Selling business plans is the real reason.
You won't believe the number of crazy people in Germany who believe that static IP addresses are the root of all evil because of all the magucal tracking and surveillance possibilities they famtasize about.
Even in developed countries IPv6 is barely deployed (my UK ISP - BT - pretends that they rolled it out but half of the time my modem tells me IPv6 is not availabled until I force it to reconnect, and no sign of IPv6 on mobile networks). Was looking at whether it was more economical to buy a small address block vs rent it from a datacentre. A /24 address block seems to cost around $4,000 upfront but then you need to p…
Support for IPv6 is weird. Comcast's IPv6 implementation is rock solid and faster than IPv4 most of the time. I've been running publicly accessible IPv6 HTTP hosts over it for several years now. The last two Motorola Modems I've had came with IPv6 support and were provisioned by Comcast out of the box. Access Points from D-Link will autoconfigure via SLAAC but DNS has to be hardcoded. It's 2018 and yet Ubiquiti's Uni…
It's hard for an ISP to justify switching. It costs money now, so your competition who do not switch can use the money saved to outcompete you. Switching costs are also likely to fall the longer you wait. Customers don't demand it. If I was CEO of an ISP, I would have ordered a plan, but not put it into action just yet.
I work at a small ISP and I consider this a misconception. Any network equipment your ISP bought or gave you in the last 10-15 years supports IPv6. Equipment only has a certain lifespan anyways, so there really has been no "cost" to upgrade. Maybe a bit of software needed updating. In my experience, the problem is customers don't care that much about IPv6. When your customer is an IT professional who has been configu…
With vhosts and the proliferation of CDNs, will this ever happen? If my site is behind CloudFront, I don't need any IPv4 addresses of my own
The only thing that IPv6 really solves for end-users is peer-to-peer. If video games, VoIP, etc have lower lag on IPv6 (due to not having to go though a mediating server) customers might demand it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then they reverse the assignment, as the ultimate authority on the internet they do have the right.
"Something something National Security"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Support for IPv6 is weird. Comcast's IPv6 implementation is rock solid and faster than IPv4 most of the time. I've been running publicly accessible IPv6 HTTP hosts over it for several years now. The last two Motorola Modems I've had came with IPv6 support and were provisioned by Comcast out of the box. Access Points from D-Link will autoconfigure via SLAAC but DNS has to be hardcoded. It's 2018 and yet Ubiquiti's Uni…
In Belgium, my provider's (Telenet) IPv6 connection is better than IPv4. Every now and then some network applications and websites will stop working, and invariably they're the ones that depend on IPv4. Meanwhile the IPv6 internet just keeps working without a hitch. Takes a good 5 minutes for the IPv4 to come back on then. Luckily I've got a static /64 subnet from the ISP so most of the services I run for personal us…