Imagine a world where everybody used IPv6

The idea is to be able to access your devices when you are out. You may want to turn the heating on your way home, preheat the oven, print some documents to save time doing it when you get in.

Oh you actually want to USE it? Then good luck finding an affordable router with a secure firewall. The good IPv6 shit is > 500 €.

how many people are understand that? put normies perspective on that.

But it's hard to country-block with IPV6

do you mean firewall with layer 3?

lol, you can use any ARM SBC with two NICs and a Linux kernel as an IPv6 router that hands out addresses via SLAAC, or you can buy a cheap PC with two NICs for Linux or pfSense.

Use openbsd firewall or something like that. It is super easy and cheap.

IPV6 is overly complicated and is designed to track you. It has no respect for network engineers or sys admins.

It does matter if you want to run a server from home or online gaming. Not so much a big problem for home broadband but mobile IP addresses are often shared between multiple customers at once (cgnat). I'm sure first world governments are going to press ahead with IPv6 because right now, unless ISP are logging everything, it's a pain to find out exactly the user on a shared IP. IPv6 will effectively allow every person, every device to have their own unique IP addresses. We are headed for a dystopian future and IPv6 very much caters that.

It's your computer address

>We are headed for a dystopian future and IPv6 very much caters that.
*tips tinfoil hat*

Nah, it's cheaper for ISPs to keep current infrastructure and just limit the visible IPs to customers who pay extra.

There would be too many IP addresses (computer addresses) to search

We need search engine running on quantum computer

Big ISP already have dual stack IPv4/IPv6. Once every site becomes a part of the amazon/cloudflare/google botnet, they can cut off IPv4 for good.

ISP can buy blocks of address space so this effectively cuts down having to guess from trillions of IP addresses down to maybe a few million.

Not really. IPv6 geoip data is out there just like it is for IPv4.

A while back I looked into turning on IPv6 on my home network. The impression I got was that everything is pretty easy and just werks if you throw everything in one subnet (a /64) with SLAAC. And that you'll have a huge bitch of a time doing anything if you want to ask for a prefix delegation from your ISP and then tell a DHCP6 server about which prefixes you have and which ones to put on different interfaces that go to different subnets. For that matter some ISPs won't even give you a prefix delegation, you get a /64 and that's it. Of the ones that do you can apparently usually get a /56, except when you can't and can only get a /60 (Comcast does this) and oh, if you ask incorrectly they'll give you a /64 anyway and then cache that in their DHCP, just to make it difficult to fix.

> Imagine a world where everybody used IPv6.
One giant security breach.

Except the minimum you can expect even a fucking home network router getting assigned is at least a /64, not to mention what ISPs get. And your numbers are a bit off, I have a /56, which has 2^72 addresses, which is a fuckton more than a trillion.

Lol wut. There will still be private addresses, hence link local addresses or dhcp6. Routers will exist.

Honestly I think my ISP is planning to only IPv6 their backend and dish out IPv4 IPs to customers, like mini internets inside of their outward facing IPv6 addresses.

I actually got memed into upgrading my router to be IPv6 ready, and I'm still geting IPv4 addresses. My ISP just told me to not worry about it and they'll handle everything seamlessly.

>every IP connected device would have an IP address accessible on the internet.
ipv6 solved a problem that did not exist. and very few wanted solved.
They would have been better off giving ipv4 fields an extra two fields and calling it ipv4e.

IPv6
[[[[[BOTNET]]]]]

Yeah but it won't matter, everywhere decent will be IPv6 by the mid 2020s, who cares if some third world slum is still using IPv4?

IPv6 is massively simplified in comparison to IPv4

IPv4 is gonna hang on the longest in America and the EU because the internet was a thing there sooner, so thats where the lions share of the v4 blocks went. The rest of the world has much heavier address-exhaustion pressure and much less legacy-infrastructure baggage.

>500 eurobucks
>europoors think this is a lot of money

wew

brainlet here, does IPv6 have NAT? if it is not, does that mean that every computer in the world is routable and addressable from anywhere in the world even inside LANs? Does that mean that every device should get its LAN ip from the ISP directly?

It exists. All of the internet greybeards pretend it doesn't, since most of the reason they bothered making v6 in the first place was their objections (technical and philosophical) to NAT. Also since it's a "You probably shouldn't do this" kind of thing its implementation isn't exactly a priority for the people who write OS network stacks, but there are implementations and you can do it if you want.

And yes, the whole goal of IPv6 was "everything has a unique publicly-routable address". The ISP doesn't hand out a single address, it hands out subnets. The smallest subnet is usually a /64 in IPv6, which is the minimum you can expect to get from any ISP that supports it, but many will, even for ordinary residential lines, hand out a /60 or a /56. Like, imagine if the way IPv4 worked was that the ISP didn't give you one address, they gave out a whole publicly-routable /24, or more. That's how v6 is, with bigger numbers.

The way they want you to hand out addresses to individual hosts in a nominally-/64 subnet is SLAAC, which randomly picks an address based on the MAC. If you want to organize things further, DHCP6 exists and everything supports it except Android, which refuses to for stupid reasons.

>what's a thonkpad and *nix
this is Jow Forums fagglord

Attached: 1530270628755-g.png (500x700, 417K)

thanks, but if I got you correctly, this is very dangerous in terms of security, if some device inside a LAN has open ports used by not secure or old apps, this can be exploited by anyone in the planet. I understand that the address space is 2^128 so it's very big for anyone to catch you specifically if he doesn't have the address, but there is a big change that millions of devices get hacked very simply just because they are routable from anywhere. If that's the case, I'd prefer the 40 yo ipv4

Remember you are on Jow Forums where most people who profess to be computer literate are in fact civilians who know a little bit more than their great granddad but not as much as Richard stallman. I have worked in the computer industry many years and have heard such a lot of shit talked about IPv6. IPv6 is not inherently unsafe. An IPv6 router will allow you to do NAT so that you can create a private network behind a single IP address. The problem with IPv6 is that ISP's dont want to adopt it because it will mean Billions of dollars worth of upgrades and will be a nighmare to implement seamlessly. They dont want downtime and dont want to have to pass on costs to customers. An Ipv6 router would be a lot safer than a IPv4 router, the problem is that again it's an extra cost. Cheapskate ISP's who dont want to increase their number of IPv4 addresses will instead opt for private addresses decreasing that number by a factor of 256. The lack of uptake of IPv6 is not the fault of end-users but of ISP's. Most admit that they will probably not change from IPv4 for at least 20 years

Attached: 107077.jpg (472x596, 92K)

IPv6 is pretty much a failure
>works fine
vs
>works fine IF "Billions of dollars worth of upgrades" are spent

>The way they want you to hand out addresses to individual hosts in a nominally-/64 subnet is SLAAC, which randomly picks an address based on the MAC

Which is exactly how your isp currentl;y operates it's IPv4 address system. If you dont believe me, spoof your IPv4 address on the router switch off the modem and the router, restart both and you will have a new IPv4 address

That 2^128 does provide a lot of protection actually. It's feasible to scan all of IPv4 looking for vulnerable things, a VPS with a decent pipe can do it in like 20 minutes.

But the bigger thing is that IPv4 NAT has kind of fallen into being viewed as a firewall. It has the same effect, by default, as a firewall that allows outbound connections but denies inbound ones, which is also the most common default firewall setup. In IPv6 you need to have a firewall doing the firewalling jobs, instead of relying on a side effect of having a NAT box. In other words your router will lose the "port forwarding" page and gain more options on the firewall page. The latter's probably already happened for anything bought within the current decade.

They kinda assumed that address exhaustion would force a big-bang upgrade on the internet and figured "well, we don't have to worry about IPv4 interop then! We won't do things like embedding v4 routing tables into v6, since that'll simplify things, at the cost of that interop that we don't need." And then, surprise, the rest of the world found NAT much less objectionable than the greybeards did, and kept on making do with dwindling address space for years and years.

There's only been a few big v6 success stories and as far as I know they've all been along the lines of "We have this fuckhuge datacenter, and we managed to exhaust the RFC1918 v4 blocks"

lmao dudes it's just a longer IP it's the same shit

Jokes on you my country is the size of a thumb and can implement anything in months

each internet connection need its own ip(it is like an ID that allow servers to know from where a connection request came and for where an answer should go). Back in the 70's when the military and the scientist where still defining the protocols and basic rules that would allow internet to work,they decided that this IP would be a 32 bits address,which means up to 4,300,000,000 possible IPs.Back then this was a lot because the only people using the internet were schoolars and the army but today that is nothing because we have personal computers,smartphones,servers,iot and way more people around the world using it. So they decided that we needed a new IP adress that was bigger than the original ip.

the original ip is the ipv4 and the new ip is the ipv6(which is a 128bits address)

it will never happen. they will just force everyone on cgn instead

they can log the internal ip of that natshit tho so its just as easy to track as a normal ip if you do something illegal.

its literally just a software update. it only costs that much because everything runs on proprietary shit that becomes unsupported quickly.

Use a firewall.

>>manufacturers have to actually give a shit about security even for internet of shit devices
>they don't currently have to

Why not IPv5?

Attached: 1495858560953.jpg (500x500, 21K)

i love how normies (probably americans) cant into 4,3*10^9 and 3,4 * 10^38 and need things like 8 gazzilion trillion (!!!)

>Can you fucking imagine that nightmare?
You're living it you fucking idiot. NAT isn't firewall. Your precious ipv4 doesn't protect you from getting owned over the Internet.

There's been alarmists saying the internet will basically die from running out of ipv4 addresses for more than 10 years now, but it's still perfectly fine. Most people don't actually need their own IP.

NAT alone enhances security, but even then most consumer routers have a firewall as well.

>>tfw IPv4 is probably going to be around for another 20 years at least
yeah, because the IPv6 transition was completely botched
cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html
they have nobody but themselves to blame (the ipv6 evangelists)

>trillion trillion trillion
This is retarded. Stop repeating zillion names. Either use just one (undecillion), or express the number in scientific notation (3.4 * 10^38)

>djb personal's website
>plain HTTP
come on, you had your own cipher suite listed in TLS standard, WTF man justmake your fucking website on HTTPS

enough for the government to track every device in the universe ;^)

you're right, but NAT itself made the internet much safer by hiding complete networks behind the gateway. This alongside unroutable LAN addresses makes it very difficult to fuck with LAN devices at L3 and L4 even with misconfigured routers firewall rules

>NAT alone enhances security
no, just no
it's actively harmful because retards think it's "good enough" when it's got nothing to do with security
it's the equivalent of using DES ciphers
>but even then most consumer routers have a firewall as well.
that's a red herring
this has nothing to do with firewalls
the user I was responding to claimed that ipv6 is bad because devices on local network would be accessible from the Internet, when in fact that can be accomplished through ipv4 NAT as well

>NAT itself made the internet much safer by hiding complete networks behind the gateway
bullshit, the only thing you're hiding is exact topology and making access to local devices marginally harder
"marginally" because we actively break any semblance of NAT security to make common services like VoIP and peer-to-peer protocols work right

NAT is harmful bullshit that breaks more things than it fixes, but for some reason it's regarded as the holy grail of networking
so much so the idiots want to extend it to ipv6 as well

Canceled.

funny you're syaing about my argument bullshit while you're totally echoing what I was saying. NAT itself wasn't created for enhancing security, but today it's a good tool for enhancing the security of the internet, if everybody upgraded their LANs to ip6, we will see a flood of attacks just because the addresses are routable from and to outside world unless the routers are correctly configured so that they drop any new connection starting from outside

there are lan addresses for ipv6 too like there is 10.0.0.0 for ipv4

>it's actively harmful because retards think it's "good enough" when it's got nothing to do with security

How's that "actively harmful"? An internet full of retards creates a lot of low hanging fruit that serves as an effective buffer against organizations going after people practicing actual security.

ipv6 is bad because so few people know how to configure it in the slightest. it's hard to fathom that we live in a world in which a group of well educated men formed a committee and what they came up with was ipv6. it boggles the mind.

You do realize that ipv6 was invented well before the modern internet, right?

NAT IS NOT A SECURITY FEATURE
FUCK YOU AND YOUR SHITTY OPINIONS

doesn't sound like anything I've said

please learn what ipv6 is before commenti- oh wait I forgot this is Jow Forums - brainlets united

>How's that "actively harmful"?
I don't know user, maybe because that's how botnets with 1Tbps throughput are made?

>ipv6 is hard
go back to where you came from you luddite
ipv6 has some bad parts, but overall it's an improvement

there are firewalls for ipv6 in routers that support it and it works just as well as the one for ipv4. lots of home users still have real ipv4 addresses and have no problems with it. its just retarded tech illiterate redditors that hate ipv6.

Attached: 00.png (274x242, 16K)

it might not be but its basically a firewall for incoming connections as long as you dont have something in the network that forwards a port and that would require some kind exploit that the user behind the nat runs.

Duh, I'm just saying that's why IPv6 was made. Clearly due to subnets and NAT etc we don't have people's garbage on the internet, but with IPv6 we actually could.

Why do you care about botnets? Are they targeting you?

Port forwarding, dude. Or VPN.

you cant forward ports on cgn. you need to use things like ssh tunnels to get some kind off remote access to those networks.

VPN then. You can VPN on fucking phones nowadays.

>why do you care about individuals with the power to deny any service on the Internet at will?

>getting angry on behalf of corporations

>it's actively harmful because retards think it's "good enough" when it's got nothing to do with security
The retards don't know what NAT nor a firewall is and just use the routers their ISPs give them.

>this has nothing to do with firewalls
Then why did you bring them up?

>crooks get away with ipv4 hoarding because a new standard exists
it's a pretty shit world desu

how is that limited to corporations you autist?

>reeee russia is DDoSing my blog

>projecting this hard

Attached: 1405010329388.gif (352x264, 1.99M)

this. many ip blocks are really owned by companies and others that would not need that many public ips

>owned
>owned
>OWNED
Yes. And so ends your - and your kind's - pie-in-the-sky notions of "taking them back for mother Rus... I mean, The People!".

Apache solved the issue with virtual hosts, you can super easily host many, many websites on a single ipv4 address.

>Ipv6 was BTFO in 2002
>still not used 16 years later

where is ipv5?

IPv5 was an experimental protocol that never left academia and research.

He's actually mistaken on a lot of it. You can encapsulate IPv6 inside IPv4 (ironically enough) so it can be handled by older hardware.
The only real problem is that you need clients and servers that support IPv6, and they all do already.

What killed IPv6 is that while it was being developed, all the features they were building into it were backported to IPv4, solving the need to use IPv6 in the first place.

tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1819
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Stream_Protocol
ded