4 ms·
Not at all. This would be much easier to migrate and support. Nowadays you have two entire separate stacks, each with their own firewall rules. That's why the
by redox99 3y ago
Not at all. This would be much easier to migrate and support.
Nowadays you have two entire separate stacks, each with their own firewall rules. That's why the first thing I do is outright disable IPv6 because of the potential security issues due to misconfiguration.
The hardware and operating systems have supported IPv6 for a very long time. The problem is that it's a pain in the ass to maintain 2 stacks simultaneously, that's why adoption is so slow.
OS and hardware support is not the bottleneck.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hot_gril 3y agoYep, this idea comes up every time because it's actually a good idea.
- Dagger2 3y agoAnd every time people explain why the idea is either impossible or describing v6's existing behavior. At what point do these posts become trolling?
- hot_gril 3y agoI've yet to see a satisfactory explanation of either. It's always basically "you'd still have to change the headers" which misses the point.