When we'll get rid of the outdated IPv4 in favor of the

At least 10 more years

File: linux guy.jpg (194KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 640x480px

When the ISPs decide to jew us all with CGNAT IPv4 unless you pay an extra $20 per month for a business plan

ipv6 is a mistake because nats provide security allow you to be anon

imagine if you are outside trying to attack a target and they are a hotel using ipv4

from the outside you have no idea how many addresses or where traffic is going because its all subcategories of the original WAN adress

with ipv6 every client in the lan has their own WAN address and is directly accessible from outside

>>61690462
Not for a long time since legacy computers are still in use.

>>61690577
>ipv6 is a mistake because nats provide security allow you to be anon
No, they don't.

>imagine if you are outside trying to attack a target and they are a hotel using ipv4
>from the outside you have no idea how many addresses or where traffic is going because its all subcategories of the original WAN adress
Implying you can't easily trick the client browser to run arbitrary code exposing how many clients there are on the LAN.

>your devices MAC address is part of your ipv6 address by typical convention
Lel

>>61690606
Only if you use stateless autoconf (which nobody does).

File: 1398039232216.jpg (55KB, 793x494px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 793x494px

>>61690606
Even wangblows enables privacy extensions as default

>>61690577
https://blog.webernetz.net/2013/05/21/why-nat-has-nothing-to-do-with-security/

If it means we won't get IOT then I hope ipv6 will never come.

Still can't setup a VPN or Server and access it from outside due to my shitty ISP forcing me to use a IPv6 NAT without any option to use port forwarding.

>>61690625
Kill yourself, you fucking retard.

>>61690602
implying anyone on the hotel will access your malicious website

>>61690462
>end to end addressing
This means that any shitty program you have running will be directly accessible by the internet unless you setup your router to block it.
The new default will be no security.

>>61692127
It's fairly easy to do DNS poisoning, so yeah. I mean, that still requires you to access the LAN, but that's not particularly hard as the WLAN security on most hotels are absolutely appalling if not lacking.

>>61692212
If you're already inside the lan, ipv6 vs ipv4 doesn't matter anymore.

>>61692236
Anon's original argument assumes I have access to a poorly configured WAN where I can sniff packets in the first place. The NAT as a security measure argument is just stupid, see >>61690636

>>61690462
>
People are afraid of moving on to new stuff, that's why our tech standards are ones from the fucking stone age (see jpeg, mp3 etc.)

>>61690462
Never, it seems

>>61690484
maybe more, ive seen network cameras still sold without ipv6 in mind and NO FUCK THAT CLOUD THING it doesnt count

Some more years. My ISP doesn't even like IPv6 unfortunately.

>>61690636
>If he really wants to enter your network, he will find a way to do so
Not an argument, everyone knows that security needs multiple layers of security
>NAT as a hiding feature is useless if the attacker is able to access any of the internal devices!
IF
>Internet trackers, etc. count their users on more relevant information than simply the incoming IPv4 addresses
Again, we work in layers, so we try every fucking shit we can
>A device that cannot forward packets since it is not able to process them correctly should not be called a firewall.
true

nice "link" bro