3 ms·

I'm going to hold off as long as possible before being forced by silicon valley giants to use ipv6. I do not wish anyone to know how many devices or which devic

I'm going to hold off as long as possible before being forced by silicon valley giants to use ipv6. I do not wish anyone to know how many devices or which device I'm browsing from. NAT is a casual layer of privacy and provides commonplace plausible deniability. IPv6 eliminates that for no personal benefit.

awestroke 5y ago
Why can't you NAT with ipv6?
- p1mrx 5y ago
  One issue is that RFC6724 will cause most clients to prefer IPv4 when the IPv6 address is a ULA (unique local). But if you're hitting a NAT either way, then maybe it doesn't matter.
  - viraptor 5y ago
    Using NAT doesn't force ULA. You can NAT any address you want on your gateway/router.
mappu 5y ago
This issue was addressed with IPv6 privacy addresses since Windows XP / Android 4.
jabl 5y ago
Don't all OS's in wide usage use the IPv6 privacy extensions by default these days? That is, random addresses, regularly rotated.
Sunspark 5y ago
The internet is supposed to work on a server-client model where you can FTP to someone's site, etc. NAT is nothing but a workaround that has caused problems.
- exabrial 5y ago
  What problems? Everything here works just fine. Except Google/Facebook/MyIsp don't know how many devices I have... ...who also are the people pushing ipv6 the hardest for some reason.
_carbyau_ 5y ago
I feel like I am missing something here. I too like NAT and am not sure why everyone is so keen to get rid of it. With IPv6, all my home machines could be naked on the internet and individually addressable. But no one honestly wants that. So there will be a home firewall. And instead of port forwarding there will be punching holes in the firewall. And because regular home consumers won't want to do this manually for every service on every device, there will be a UPNP equivalent, however terrible that already is. I recall hearing stories of ISP's trying to limit how many devices could use a given Internet connection and how retarding (IE as in actually limiting progress) that was. I don't need my ISP trying to bill me per machine connected. Some part of me wants IPv6. I know I don't want ISP level CGNAT. I know I don't truly understand IPv6. The cost/benefit ratio hasn't motivated me to look closely at IPv6 yet. I am hoping that by the time I am so motivated, there will be plentiful standard patterns of home use, easily readable (please not more tutorial videos...) for me to learn and to point family and friends at.
welterde 5y ago
It's not really silicon valley giants that really care that you use IPv6. They already managed to get most of their IPv4 resources for a reasonably low price. It is new small companies that will want you to use IPv6, since they will be the ones that will be fighting over the scraps of IPv4 space left by the giants.

awestroke 5y ago

Why can't you NAT with ipv6?

p1mrx 5y ago
One issue is that RFC6724 will cause most clients to prefer IPv4 when the IPv6 address is a ULA (unique local). But if you're hitting a NAT either way, then maybe it doesn't matter.
- viraptor 5y ago
  Using NAT doesn't force ULA. You can NAT any address you want on your gateway/router.

mappu 5y ago

This issue was addressed with IPv6 privacy addresses since Windows XP / Android 4.

jabl 5y ago

Don't all OS's in wide usage use the IPv6 privacy extensions by default these days? That is, random addresses, regularly rotated.

Sunspark 5y ago

The internet is supposed to work on a server-client model where you can FTP to someone's site, etc. NAT is nothing but a workaround that has caused problems.

exabrial 5y ago
What problems? Everything here works just fine. Except Google/Facebook/MyIsp don't know how many devices I have... ...who also are the people pushing ipv6 the hardest for some reason.

_carbyau_ 5y ago

I feel like I am missing something here. I too like NAT and am not sure why everyone is so keen to get rid of it. With IPv6, all my home machines could be naked on the internet and individually addressable. But no one honestly wants that. So there will be a home firewall. And instead of port forwarding there will be punching holes in the firewall. And because regular home consumers won't want to do this manually for every service on every device, there will be a UPNP equivalent, however terrible that already is. I recall hearing stories of ISP's trying to limit how many devices could use a given Internet connection and how retarding (IE as in actually limiting progress) that was. I don't need my ISP trying to bill me per machine connected. Some part of me wants IPv6. I know I don't want ISP level CGNAT. I know I don't truly understand IPv6. The cost/benefit ratio hasn't motivated me to look closely at IPv6 yet. I am hoping that by the time I am so motivated, there will be plentiful standard patterns of home use, easily readable (please not more tutorial videos...) for me to learn and to point family and friends at.

welterde 5y ago

It's not really silicon valley giants that really care that you use IPv6. They already managed to get most of their IPv4 resources for a reasonably low price. It is new small companies that will want you to use IPv6, since they will be the ones that will be fighting over the scraps of IPv4 space left by the giants.