4 ms·
> For most purposes, IPv6 works the same as v4 Theoretically yes, in practice not at all. Just one major difference: No NAT any more.
by blattimwind 8y ago
> For most purposes, IPv6 works the same as v4
Theoretically yes, in practice not at all. Just one major difference: No NAT any more.
- okket 8y ago> No NAT any more The funny thing is, there will be mandatory NAT on the carrier side during transition to IPv6 because of unwillingness of major websites to announce AAAA (including this one). See [0] for some transition method examples. The common theme of these methods is: They spoof DNS to point to fake IPv6 addresses, which is horrible, HORRIBLE, but hopefully motivates IPv4 holdouts to move to IPv6, announce AAAAs. If you want to see what a wasteland IPv6 still currently is, and why such transition NAT madness will be necessary (sadly): Try disabling IPv4 when you have native IPv6 and your carrier has not enabled such DNS spoofing transition methods yet. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_transition_mechanism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_transition_mechanism
- disiplus 8y agoi also disable ipv6 on my servers for abuse purposes, it is to easy to get iv6 addresses
- okket 8y agoPlease do not disable IPv6.
- blattimwind 8y agoDisagree. If you've only got IPv4 experience and have a number of possibly legacy devices on your network, then there is a significant amount of learning and changes required to make it work with IPv6 (securely). It's entirely reasonable to say "It works fine without [=zero business value], no need to invest that amount of work.". This makes IPv6 a negative value proposition for many orgs.
- mirimir 8y agoIt depends on the context. I mostly focus on users of VPN services. It's still rare for them to handle IPv6 traffic. So if you have IPv6 connectivity, IPv6 will leak, bypassing the VPN. Unless you have firewall rules, or disable IPv6 while using the VPN.
- kiallmacinnes 8y agoDo you mean you turn off IPv6, because it's easy for others to get lots of IPs and bypass a IP blacklist? If so, that is a difference from IPv4. Don't block IPs, block subnets. Block the whole /64. It's what you were doing with IPv4 anyway - blocking a whole building / office / etc at once! That's still no reason to turn IPv6 off in my humble opinion...
- ryanlol 8y agoIPv6 ratelimiting can be a bit tricky, you block my /64 and I come back with a /48 and so on. Most stuff defaults to bucketing by /64s.
- kiallmacinnes 8y agoRight, but how does this differ from IPv4? Every time I restart my cable modem, I get a new IP from a /18 or so of IPv4 space. IP blocking is far from ideal, in both versions of IP.. IPv6 makes this no better, or worse.
- ryanlol 8y agoYou get a single IP, that doesn’t scale well at all.
- mrpippy 8y agoHorrible? Sure it's not ideal, but it allows carriers to go IPv6-only on their internal networks. Mobile carriers already put all IPv4 traffic behind a NAT, so this isn't a step backwards. For most users, the transition will happen via dual-stack (where the customer runs their own IPv4 NAT), not NAT64.
- rohan1024 8y ago>No NAT I'm in India and my mobile service provider (Jio) is handing out ipv6 addresses. The fascinating thing about this is I was able to access a server hosted on my phone from Internet. Crazy!
- ramshanker 8y agoNext everyone hosting his/her own website from his/her own smartphone. I am loving this era.
- mirimir 8y agoWhat phone? And what scope, local or global? Maybe a firewall would be prudent ;)