Let's convince the general public to yse ipv6 and abandon the safety of NAT

better, the default configuration of pretty much every firewall I've seen is the exact same thing NAT gets you - allow outbound, deny inbound, which is often all you need and is generally where you want to start if it isn't.

There's plenty of stupid shit in and about IPv6 that you can rip on, but lack of NAT isn't one of those things. NAT is a giant pain in the ass and pretty much the central design goal of v6 was eliminating it.

>NAT is a giant pain in the ass
Brainlet detected

Please don't trigger me.

NAT
IS
NOT
A
SECURITY
FEATURE

But this is probably a trole anyways. You got me.

Attached: bill-gates.jpg (1280x720, 200K)

It is though

How? You know that hole punching exists, right?

set up something larger than a home network and then get back to me.

It's literally no different what the fuck are you talking about

>breaks literally everything its used on

>>breaks literally everything its used on
Yes. That's why we try to get rid o NAT.
You could even use NAT on IPv6, but no one does that because it is just unnecessary bloat

NAT isn't a safety feature, but it's arguably convenient at times. Besides, there's zero (0) compelling arguments for IPv6 to be considered, except that it's cost-effective. IP space prices are totally irrelevant.
Lack of interoperability and lack of enforcement in the adoption will mark it a fugazi
a 24 yo one btw, it has always been the nerd brother of IPv4 everyone bullied in high school
IPv6 will NEVER be relevant in our lifetime, and arguably it will be surpassed by something actually disruptive. Or not.

>trole
Back to telegram

No one does that because no one uses ipv6

>No one does that because no one uses ipv6
>implying
even some parts of the german government run on ipv6, because i implemented them.

t. ipv6 user because my isp doesn't roll out ipv4 anymore

ahahaha fuck off

>>It's literally no different what the fuck are you talking about
yeah a few thousand machines and a pile of services that need incoming connections from the outside world is totally no different than some faggot who needs wi-fi for a laptop and a phone. Surely NAT is no headache for the former if its no headache for the latter.

Fun Fact: 100% of Facebook's internal networking is v6. They only ever speak v4 at the edges so that the v4 internet can talk to their datacenters. It's been that way since 2014. They did it because they literally ran out of space in 10.0.0.0/8, kek

what would they need 16 million addressable devices for?

Comcast rolled out IPv6 years ago because of similar issues with modem management addresses. Now I get a /60 plus a single address for the router.

They have that many containers.

Most ISPs nowadays use IPv6 with DSlite tunneling, brainlet.

its more like you can never utilize v4 address space with 100% efficiency. eg, you want to put machines together in subnets in a logical way, but maybe you have, say, 200 of them, so you have to give them a whole /24 and then waste the remaining addresses.

>200 of them, so you have to give them a whole /24 and then waste the remaining addresses.
that would make 2 wasted addresses per subnet. So 400.
Let's make it 4 wasted because we need a router between those.
That would mean they wasted 800 addresses from 16 million. Wow, this sounds like a lot!!!