11 ms·

The biggest benefit is that there are more public IP addresses. The original solution for public IP addresses running out was NAT/PAT which allows a network to

The biggest benefit is that there are more public IP addresses. The original solution for public IP addresses running out was NAT/PAT which allows a network to have it's own private IP addresses, but hide all internet traffic behind one public IP address. Think if you have 10 devices connected to your wifi/router, but you're only paying for standard internet connection. By hiding behind one address, it provided a huge layer of protection between individual devices and the internet, but also made some types of traffic a huge pain in the ass (see ICE/STUN/TURN). With IPV6 we can give every device it's own public address, but one major concern is that it could lead to an explosion of insecure devices accessible directly from the internet. Right now if your printer or refrigerator is insecure, it doesn't really matter because it is inaccessible from the internet. The business answer for this is properly configured firewalls and proxy servers, but that's too much for the average home user. The biggest downside is systems that assume all addresses are IPv4. These could be legacy hardware thats been sitting in a closet chugging along for 20 years, or brand new software where the developer didn't consider v6 as a possibility. EDIT: Some specific benefits: Cheaply hosting stuff from my house. Easy Direct secure communication without a middle-man. More competition for hosting companies Room for more people

shrx 4y ago
> The business answer for this is properly configured firewalls and proxy servers, but that's too much for the average home user. So what is the alternative for the average home user?
viraptor 4y ago
> With IPV6 we can give every device it's own public address, but one major concern is that it could lead to an explosion of insecure devices accessible directly from the internet. This gets repeated, but we've already got lots of home IPv6 routers and none of them allow direct access by default. You need to jump through some hoops to enable external access. Nobody wants public access by default and anyone who does it will get noticed and called out very quickly.
WorldMaker 4y ago
The home side is basically the same as the business side: a good router has needed to be a good firewall regardless of NAT anyway, because the router can't just assume NAT (even if it is de facto everywhere). NATs as first-pass filter of a firewall was always an accidental feature at best. Obviously we start to see which routers are "good" home routers shake out as IPv6 adoption picks up, but given current statistics homes are leading IPv6 adoption and it is businesses (with their complex surveillance proxies and IPv4 micro-management practices) that are greatly lagging in adoption curves. (Typical IPv6 graphs show a "bathtub" effect where IPv6 goes up in evenings and weekends as people switch from work devices and networks/VPNs to home devices and home networks.) Homes are more ready for IPv6 than people want to give credit to. Claiming NATs to be one of the best features of Home IPv4 seems sometimes to just be FUD designed to be anti-IPv6 as much as it is a legitimate concern.
- throwaway894345 4y ago
  > Obviously we start to see which routers are "good" home routers shake out as IPv6 adoption picks up Experts might, but most security isn't a visible property to most users, or at least they won't readily or reliably attribute router vulnerabilities to the router. This in turn means that security will get worse but the market probably won't correct itself, or at least the correction won't manifest as markedly better routers (the consumer router space sucks as it is because the customers aren't usually experts). I don't think this is a compelling reason to avoid an ipv6 transition, but I don't agree with the implication that ipv6 will have positive security benefits.
  - BenjiWiebe 4y ago
    I have yet to see a home router that doesn't have a default-deny firewall. I also haven't seen one that has IPv6 support without having a default-deny IPv6 firewall. They may exist, but certainly aren't common.

shrx 4y ago

> The business answer for this is properly configured firewalls and proxy servers, but that's too much for the average home user. So what is the alternative for the average home user?

viraptor 4y ago

> With IPV6 we can give every device it's own public address, but one major concern is that it could lead to an explosion of insecure devices accessible directly from the internet. This gets repeated, but we've already got lots of home IPv6 routers and none of them allow direct access by default. You need to jump through some hoops to enable external access. Nobody wants public access by default and anyone who does it will get noticed and called out very quickly.

WorldMaker 4y ago

The home side is basically the same as the business side: a good router has needed to be a good firewall regardless of NAT anyway, because the router can't just assume NAT (even if it is de facto everywhere). NATs as first-pass filter of a firewall was always an accidental feature at best. Obviously we start to see which routers are "good" home routers shake out as IPv6 adoption picks up, but given current statistics homes are leading IPv6 adoption and it is businesses (with their complex surveillance proxies and IPv4 micro-management practices) that are greatly lagging in adoption curves. (Typical IPv6 graphs show a "bathtub" effect where IPv6 goes up in evenings and weekends as people switch from work devices and networks/VPNs to home devices and home networks.) Homes are more ready for IPv6 than people want to give credit to. Claiming NATs to be one of the best features of Home IPv4 seems sometimes to just be FUD designed to be anti-IPv6 as much as it is a legitimate concern.

throwaway894345 4y ago
> Obviously we start to see which routers are "good" home routers shake out as IPv6 adoption picks up Experts might, but most security isn't a visible property to most users, or at least they won't readily or reliably attribute router vulnerabilities to the router. This in turn means that security will get worse but the market probably won't correct itself, or at least the correction won't manifest as markedly better routers (the consumer router space sucks as it is because the customers aren't usually experts). I don't think this is a compelling reason to avoid an ipv6 transition, but I don't agree with the implication that ipv6 will have positive security benefits.
- BenjiWiebe 4y ago
  I have yet to see a home router that doesn't have a default-deny firewall. I also haven't seen one that has IPv6 support without having a default-deny IPv6 firewall. They may exist, but certainly aren't common.