21–30 of 134 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. You have an IPv4. Does not matter if dynamic or static. With DS-Lite you have neither. You're behind a carrier level NAT.
I would agree that carrier grade NAT is a downgrade
Can somebody explain how Belgium achieved 28%? It's the only country that's colored bright green.
Can IPv6 become, ironically, the reason ipv4 never dies? Once a majority move to v6 wouldn't that mean a whole bunch of the ipv4 space is being free'd up. This allows those who never update to actually never update.
I also casually noticed that all but one address in my "Account Activity" view in Gmail are IPv6 addresses (ironically, the mobile phone got the one single IPv4 address in that list over 4G).
V6 works nicely and totally transparent causing zero trouble for me, even though there are some application protocols that don't handle V6 properly yet (Apple Remote Desktop and Air Video to give two examples).
One thing that's tricky about V6 is the fact that without NAT all your boxes are internet-reachable unless you have a firewall. That's easily added of course, but whereas we have protocols like upnp and nat-pmp to reconfigure NAT routers, there's nothing equivalent for various applications to tell the router to forward some V6 traffic.
So this is actually a step back what connectivity behind LANs is concerned.
I would love for applications to be able to ask the OS for their very own application specific v6 address. Then they could just listen on that instead of all interfaces (and listening on all interfaces would not include these application specific interfaces).
That way, I could theoretically get away without a restrictive firewall while still giving applications a way to be directly connected to. An attacker would have to scan a /48 (in my case) or a /64 (in the worst case) in order to find an open port given a known remote address.
After I switched ISP to one that supports native IPv6 (and generally is pure awesome), I noticed that my traffic at home went to about 50% IPv6, also thanks to YouTube supporting V6. I also casually noticed that all but one address in my "Account Activity" view in Gmail are IPv6 addresses (ironically, the mobile phone got the one single IPv4 address in that list over 4G). V6 works nicely and totally transparent causi…
We have firewalls. We know how they work and how to implement them well. For all intents and purposes a typical NAT-setup is bascially wide open from the inside and out. You can do the same with a few simple rules on a firewall.
I'd be very interested in knowing how these stats were calculated - 12% of the United States on IPv6 seems a bit high. Maybe what Google is saying is that "It's Available, but we're not saying people are using it." - For example, Comcast has had IPv6 widely deployed for at least a year, so most of their customer might be identified as "Available" - even if their browsers aren't doing a AAAA lookup for www.google.com.
Everyone using Verizon Wireless with an IPv6 capable device is using IPv6. It's behind some sort of carrier grade proxy, but is IPv6.
Can IPv6 become, ironically, the reason ipv4 never dies? Once a majority move to v6 wouldn't that mean a whole bunch of the ipv4 space is being free'd up. This allows those who never update to actually never update.
But I don't think having more free space will make much difference; they can use a reserved IPv4 address (in the 10.* range or so) and have a public IPv6 address configured in the NAT gateway.
After I switched ISP to one that supports native IPv6 (and generally is pure awesome), I noticed that my traffic at home went to about 50% IPv6, also thanks to YouTube supporting V6. I also casually noticed that all but one address in my "Account Activity" view in Gmail are IPv6 addresses (ironically, the mobile phone got the one single IPv4 address in that list over 4G). V6 works nicely and totally transparent causi…
While having an unique address per application can be cool, I don't like the premise that this is used as some sort of security layer. We have firewalls. We know how they work and how to implement them well. For all intents and purposes a typical NAT-setup is bascially wide open from the inside and out. You can do the same with a few simple rules on a firewall.
Skype (or other VoIP clients), Bittorrent, Game servers, etc all work better with or flat-out require external connectivity.
In the V4 world, we have upnp or NAP-PMP to allow applications to open a port on the router and to have the router then forward the packets to a client behind the router.
In the V6 world there's no equivalent protocol even though the work needed would be smaller (forwarding to a given host/port combination is enough - no port mapping).
It's bizarre that at the moment, servers on my various machines at home get better connectivity over IPv4 (thanks to NAP-PMP) than over IPv6 (thanks to my firewall).
Having application specific addresses would provide more than enough security for many simpler LANs (good luck guessing a 64 or even 80 bit number in order to get the one where the "juicy" ports are open) to use in absence of a v6 compatible NAP-PMP equivalent.
I would totally trust the 80 bits of pool size as a sufficient security boundary and I'd disable the IPv6 firewall for my home network if this concept of application specific addresses would exist.
This would also be much closer to the ideal of the old times where every machine was assumed to be connectible without additional configuration anywhere.
Can IPv6 become, ironically, the reason ipv4 never dies? Once a majority move to v6 wouldn't that mean a whole bunch of the ipv4 space is being free'd up. This allows those who never update to actually never update.