3 ms·

Not here, and the majority of ISPs have no real interest in IPv6 unfortunately.

by aragilar 3y ago

sylware 3y ago
Above all, it means IPv6 or IPv4/UPNP(gateway) are very same same.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  With the security risks of both as well.
  - sylware 3y ago
    The moment you are online, you are done for. Security does not exist, on HN we all know that. What worries me is the following: how "convenient" this "security risk" is in favor of big tech centralized services... yes, how convenient... Guess what: I will gladely take "this security risk" on top of the already tons we already have, that, to open the gate to indenpendence from big tech centralized services. And as I said, in my country, it has been years with tens of millions of people on ipv6, mobile and domestic. "Security" is just police in the digital world. Police is a permanent process. Without digital police, we'll get digital anarchy.
    - crazygringo 3y ago
      Security isn't binary, on HN we all know that. Firewalls prevent a lot of attacks, and they have nothing whatsoever to do with police departments. You're free to not use a firewall but you'll certainly understand why most people aren't going to follow your example.
      - sylware 3y ago
        Security is a process, not a deliverable in the digital world. You cannot ask domestic users to deal with a firewall. It's beyond them, this is quite unreasonable actually. Most people don't even know what is a firewall. We are talking about a digital freedom space which has to be protected by digital police or we'll end up with digital arnachy and in the filthy hands of the digital mafia which is big tech (seems to be already the case though). The other way around is digital dictatorship, which is no better. And as I said, it is much better to go p2p and federated than to be jailed in big tech centralized services. But I don't see big tech to let that happen, they'll probably hire some hackers in order to sabotage it. firewalls would actually serve them well: anything beyond centralized services would be "blocked". As I said, convenient, very convenient... way too much actually. In my country tens of millions of people have IPv6, not to mention that gateway UPNP for IPv4 is almost everywhere too, then ten of millions of people have been "following my example" for years. Of course, without an efficient digital police, this will turn to an omega sh*t show. People who work for centralized services which could be threaten by p2p protocols are more likely to try to scare away people from them.

Not here, and the majority of ISPs have no real interest in IPv6 unfortunately.

sylware 3y ago

Above all, it means IPv6 or IPv4/UPNP(gateway) are very same same.

crazygringo 3y ago
With the security risks of both as well.
- sylware 3y ago
  The moment you are online, you are done for. Security does not exist, on HN we all know that. What worries me is the following: how "convenient" this "security risk" is in favor of big tech centralized services... yes, how convenient... Guess what: I will gladely take "this security risk" on top of the already tons we already have, that, to open the gate to indenpendence from big tech centralized services. And as I said, in my country, it has been years with tens of millions of people on ipv6, mobile and domestic. "Security" is just police in the digital world. Police is a permanent process. Without digital police, we'll get digital anarchy.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    Security isn't binary, on HN we all know that. Firewalls prevent a lot of attacks, and they have nothing whatsoever to do with police departments. You're free to not use a firewall but you'll certainly understand why most people aren't going to follow your example.
    - sylware 3y ago
      Security is a process, not a deliverable in the digital world. You cannot ask domestic users to deal with a firewall. It's beyond them, this is quite unreasonable actually. Most people don't even know what is a firewall. We are talking about a digital freedom space which has to be protected by digital police or we'll end up with digital arnachy and in the filthy hands of the digital mafia which is big tech (seems to be already the case though). The other way around is digital dictatorship, which is no better. And as I said, it is much better to go p2p and federated than to be jailed in big tech centralized services. But I don't see big tech to let that happen, they'll probably hire some hackers in order to sabotage it. firewalls would actually serve them well: anything beyond centralized services would be "blocked". As I said, convenient, very convenient... way too much actually. In my country tens of millions of people have IPv6, not to mention that gateway UPNP for IPv4 is almost everywhere too, then ten of millions of people have been "following my example" for years. Of course, without an efficient digital police, this will turn to an omega sh*t show. People who work for centralized services which could be threaten by p2p protocols are more likely to try to scare away people from them.