IPv6

>>57155416
i have noticed routes to destinations using ipv6 are typically faster than ipv4

>>57155416
>is there any point in enabling IPv6 if you have to use IPv4 regardless?
Not really. Any site that supports IPv6 almost always also supports IPv4. However, there's also no reason *not* to enable it, and it's what everything is going to move to in the future, so you might as well start now.
>is one preferred over another to resolve domains?
Generally things will use IPv6 if it's available

We're currently in the transition from IPv4 to IPv6. Over the next several years as IPv6 adoption goes up, we'll probably start seeing some IPv6-only sites, but for now everything still supports IPv4 for compatibility

>>57155460
Every ipv6 address is unique.
>muh privacy
>muh targeted ads
Might as well get biochipped anon.

ipv4 is much more secure and you shouldn't use ipv6 until you have to.

>>57155416
If you enable IPv6 you don't turn off v4. You just add ipv6 capability to your system. If it doesn't work, you fucked sth. up.

>>57155416
>and configured my connection to use only IPv6
Don't do that, that's stupid.

>>57155416
What is IPv6 ?

>>57156912
IP with more bits

>>57155416
No point yet. I guess it makes your activity easier to track if you'd like that

>>57158495
And simpler headers

enable ipv4 tuneling on ur router
then u should be aple to access domains that suport only ipv4

>>57156912
>there are people on /g/ who dont know what IPv6 is

Really makes you think

>>57155754
Also means you have a much larger range of IP's to choose from.
The only privacy risk there is to IPV6 right now (ignoring certain horrible security exploits that exist in tons of IPV6 software) is if you were to remove nat and have each device on your internal network be associated with an external address. Then you can gain tons of more insight.

Aside from that there's nothing.

>>57155754
https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4941

>>57155754
>Every ipv6 address is unique
So is every ipv4 address. Do you know what unique means?

>>57161566
Ipv4 is unique to a certain extent - but ipv6 has the ability to ensure that when the iot is fully realized everything you could imagine now, and far into the distant future has one address - that includes your pc, fridge, fleshlight and yourself

>>57155940
Bullshit. IP isnt a security mechanism

>>57162755
This

>>57155460
>However, there's also no reason *not* to enable it
Aside from the privacy concerns there are other reasons not to enable it yet, if the isp just implemented it routing is still probably trash

ipv6 is botnet

>>57164107
from experience routing is almost always better, a 30 hop connection suddenly becomes a 4 hop, and each router is twice as fast because it isn't going through software NAT rules on a 40yo cisco box.

>>57164542
There are still a lot less users on ipv6 so we'll see when it's more ubiquitous if it's still true

Ive heard a lot of VPNs has DNS leaks with 6. I see no reason for it yet.

>>57164657
Because of mal configuration.

File: internet.jpg (56KB, 406x450px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 406x450px

>>57160676
>>57155416
Not necessary. Just config a router that can run dualstack.

Really, IPv6 is needed for phones, and IoT botnet devices. Anything that moves can benefit from a global unicast address that doesn't change when you move geographically.
That being said, you can take CIDR IPv4 from my cold, dead hands.

>>57160857
NAT is not a firewall, jackass.

>>57156912
Fuck off retard
>normies in my board
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEe

>>57165358
No. It's not a firewall. But what were concerned with here is how much information you disclose. If you allow for a direct address to each device you can figure out how many devices there are and what traffic each of them are sending. With NAT you can't.

You're a retard for thinking a firewall is all a router is good for in terms of privacy. And I'd certainly consider it a security feature above a privacy feature, but you're too dumb to make a distinction it seems.

Kill yourself.