Well faggots?

Well faggots?

Attached: ipv6excuses.png (672x684, 91K)

Other urls found in this thread:

cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html
blog.Jow
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Whenever they bring it online here i'll start using it.

Attached: 2019-03-27 17_21_01.png (675x306, 10K)

it's gay
cr.yp.to/djbdns/ipv6mess.html

>Why don't you use it? And give me a real answer, none of the most common concerns

Why does the image posit the notion that it is somehow an 'excuse' to not wish to make it easier for the government to track you? Using IPv6 makes it easier for the government to track you than if you use IPv4. This is not in any doubt.

Fuck off ipv6 shill.

adding those to the list

I would use it except this bingo card being even x even triggers me

Haha ive got your ip adress, now your fucked

No you don't, that's an IPv6 LAN address, not WAN. Further, I have no IPv6 WAN currently assigned.

>go see about the whole security/"security risk" thing
>it's a load of fucking bullshit
>everything else is a bunch of bs to get people to start using ipv6 to advance the IoT agenda
Fuck you and fuck IPv6. Love how the fucking IoT IPv6 alarmists have said "LOL IPv4 ADDRESSES ARE GONE" for the last 20 fucking years and it's still not true.

I'm currently using ipv6 as I shitpost.

Attached: stuffing-face-cat-meme.jpg (540x353, 92K)

Jow Forums does not support IPV6

does 4chen even support ipv6

blog.Jow Forums.org/post/87993160342/ipv6-support-for-Jow Forums

I would be genuinely interested in solutions to the NAT security thing.

Attached: no-bingo.png (672x684, 65K)

>This change was reverted due to issues with our ban system

My local ISP (Brazil) already have IPv6 however it's a shitshow lots of internet services don't have ip6 addresses, some things break on ip6, others refuse to work and some wireless services behave like shit

NAT is not a security mechanism. Your firewall is the answer

IPv6 literally nuked my WAN interface the last time I tried it. I have a Ubiquiti ER-X and I have hardware offload turned on. I enabled DHCPv6-PD and a few days later the eth0 interface just ceased to exist. Anyway, I think it's fixed in a beta firmware but I haven't upgraded yet.

NAT isn't security, so there you are.

It's security through obscurity. I could have one device behind my firewall or hundreds of thousands.

There's literally no ROI for switching LAN-connected devices to IPv6. I don't really give a fuck either way. Whatever the default is, I'll use it.

I have nothing to gain by enabling IPv6

>It's security through obscurity
So NAT isn't security.

Pinging google.com [2a00:1450:4009:809::200e] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 2a00:1450:4009:809::200e: time=1ms

ipv6 got fucked from the start by not being backwards compatible with ipv4. The arrogancy of nerds in charge of the standard is the sole cause for this stagnation.
It's probably going to be adopted eventually just due to demographic pressure from India and Africa, but in an alternate reality it could get widely adopted in 2010 as opposed to 2030+.

You can work around NAT if you know how. NAT is not security, NAT was a temporary fix for running out of IPv4 address space, and it was never intended for any other purpose.

My ISP doesn't offer IPV6 yet.

Spectrum in the Tampa area. Good service, otherwise.

NAT stops you from being directly requested by address scanning. Any decent firewall also does this which is why it's not a disadvantage for IPv6. You can also NAT your v6 addresses if you so wish.

So how do you propose that we design an addressing system using 128-bit addresses so that it can be understood by devices expecting a 32-bit address? Regardless, everything manufactured for the last decade has had IPv6 compatibility. The issue is not compatibility, the issue is a combination of the average user not knowing or caring what type of addressing he's using and most admins sticking to IPv4 because it's familiar and they didn't have any reason to switch.

Using IPv6 is a privacy issue.

That's what a firewall is for.

Retain the ipv4 header and put the upper 96 bits in the options field. The options field can be as large as 320 bits.

nat is annoying. instead of just opening a port in iptables i have to set up some stupid port forwarding on the router too

it blocks all incoming connections so your misconfigured and vulnerable windows xp computer cant be exploited by those automatic scan bots that are on the ipv4 network.

it blocks the incoming connection just like a firewall would. no one uses firewalls with whitelists for outgoing connections so theres really no difference

I'm too brainlet to memorize IPv6 addresses

It does not block the connection. It makes it more difficult for someone outside the network to find your machine but you can work around NAT if you know what you're doing.

It's garbage.

just hack the routing systems like many have already done and then you can work around firewalls too.

There is none. If you are behind a NAT, your are 100% safe vs incoming connections on IPv4. Nothing can connect to you from the internet.

On IPv6, you can get an IP that can be connected to from the internet.

lmao, no

elaborate

The thing is, with IPv6 generally (I know, can be configured differently but this is kind of the idea behind IPv6) every device gets its own internet visible IP address. When with IPv4 your device wouldn't even have an own IP from the perspective of the internet, just your router would have an IP.

So when your device (unknowingly) has apps running that listen to incoming connections (like a webserver), or can be exploited in a similar way, IPv6 is a considerable security risk.

Also, less privacy, no more dynamic IPs. They try to work around this with the privacy extensions but I have no idea what jewish tricks may be behind that.

See

there are no advantages over IPv4, and many disadvantages. I'll wait for IPv7

this. remembering up to 12 unique numbers is hard enough, now there's double colons and shit

not that user, but any router* / firewall is going to have a default deny for external to internal zone traffic.
*some business-grade routers ship with a default allow for this sort of traffic, but anybody who is stupid enough to rely on NAT to block unsolicited traffic deserves everything that happens to them