Does anyone here actually use IPv6?

>>61863345
I have enabled it in my router, but I don't care enough to check if it's working or not

>>61863345
>mobileposters
>globalposters

/thread

>>61863345
I do, my ISP has had it enabled for about 2 years now.

I have removed ipv6 support from my operating systems kernel and from all installed packages. I checked the box "block ipv6" on my Router, and just to be sure defined rules for every VLAN to drop ipv6 packages and not to route them.
I hope this answers your question.

>>61863345
Yes.

I have the option to use it but prefer not to. IPV6 gives you such an incredibly unique IP that it makes it very easy for sites to track you. They don't even need cookies with IPV6.

>>61863345
I disabled non-linklocal on my machines. Not everyone who claims to support it supports it properly yet; it caused some headaches.

>>61863345
I go out my way to disable it locally, it's an actual clusterfuck remembering things.

>>61863629
This

>>61863629
>>61864563
But why?

>>61863656

holy shit is this legit opsec ?

>>61864614
Because NAT is better

Not by choice

I recommend everyone interested to read this wonderful article, which explains why ipv6 is not catching on, and what it's flaws are: http://apenwarr.ca/log/?m=201708#10
"the world in which IPv6 was a good design"

>>61864626
The general idea of IPv6 is to go back to the time when each computer had its own unique IP.

People stopped doing this with IPv4 as there was an insufficient number of IP addresses, leading to solutions like NAT.

There's privacy extensions in IPv6 that's turned on in all recent operating systems by default:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6#Privacy

>>61863345
I have no idea how to ask for ipv6 for me or my vps
I would love too.

Yes
http://he.net/3d-map/
Japan is big on it as well

>>61864751
Even if it looks stupid, you can keep using Nat with IPV6, while you keep some of the protocole adventage and "privacy".
I don't realy belive that privacy is protect with ipv4 + NAT + all blocking cockies stuff.
And ipv6 can be an technical improvement on performance and decentralisation so it's a step forward for freedom.
So I guess ipv6 for me

>>61864641
In the case the only nat is in your router. Which is not the case any more, there are some massive nat hosted by companie, is bloat but worst, it give the power to manage internet flow in the hand of those companie.
I think nat is an aberation, ipv6 is very more basic, light and in the hand of the users.

>>61863345
I use 6to4, the god damn ISP has no IPv6 routers
>>61863656
ping me tinfoil boy
2002:57f8:7af:1::8

>>61864641
what?
nobody really wants to use NAT, we just have to

File: 589e1fbdfe[1].png (9KB, 568x71px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 568x71px

>>61864959
pinged
What 6to4 ? Maybe my solution ?

>>61863345
Developer of networking tools and a VPN here, IPv6 is just a pain in the ass. It's more of a clusterfuck than IPv4 and supporting two protocols is just excruciating. So no.

but how do we scan the entire internet in 3 minutes when everyone migrates to ipv6?

>>61865596
6to4 basically just takes IPv6 packets and encapsulates them inside IPv4 packets to transmit over an IPv4 network.

Holy shit. A useful thread on /g/? There must be something wrong with this board today.

>>61865640
So you still limited by ipv4

No. I am not a service provider so public IP address exhaustion means little to me.

At home and work I have an entire class A to organize private IP addresses with 10. (and I guess 192.168.0.0/16 and 172.16.0.0/12 too if I need them).

I don't see the benefit of IPv6 making NAT obsolete, because IMO, the less information you voluntarily expose to the internet the better.

There's also the fact that IPv6 is more annoying to read, even when you understand how it is presented.

While most business-grade devices should be compatible with IPv6 nowadays, it is still a pain in the ass to implement unless you're building ground-up for IPv6 (i.e., you probably don't want to be running IPv4 and IPv6 concurrently in your network.

IPv6 is available from my ISP through a PPPoE session with appropriate credentials.
It works, but I don't use it.

Yes, although having both an IPv6 and IPv4 at the same time confuses some programs. For example youtube-dl often hangs when I'm using both at the same time which is very annoying.

Can I have IPv6 assigned to my router and have an IPv4 only LAN?

I would love to see ipv4 abandoned completely. ISPs could give you the option of assigning a static ipv6 by mac adress, opting for dynamic by default. Hosting would be so much easier.

My ISP supports it (and will supposedly cough up a /60 prefix delegation if you tell your router to ask for it) but I don't have IPv6 enabled or in use. There's part of me that thinks I ought to for the sake of being a good internet citizen, but I haven't bothered.

Major reason because I do a lot of my browsing through a VPN. I know OpenVPN didn't support IPv6 at all for a long time, and I'm under the impression that it's still very easy to leak things outside the VPN tunnel via IPv6 - if you have an IPv4 tunnel and regular non-VPN IPv6 connectivity, a bunch of stuff will prefer IPv6 and bypass your VPN unless all your firewall ducks are in a row. Which I don't really trust them to be automatically.

Minor reason because I'm autistic and insist on knowing what IPs my machines have and assigning them myself in a manner that seems nice and orderly to me. SLAAC is 100% out of the question, I refuse to have my machines using a bunch of random addresses, and no I don't think just referring to them by hostname and having the router put entries for them in its DNS resolver is even remotely acceptable.

>>61867694
>I'm autistic and insist on knowing what IPs my machines have and assigning them myself in a manner that seems nice and orderly to me. SLAAC is 100% out of the question, I refuse to have my machines using a bunch of random addresses, and no I don't think just referring to them by hostname and having the router put entries for them in its DNS resolver is even remotely acceptable.
Lol control freak

>>61863345
Yup. It's pretty similar to IPv4 just with longer addresses. The only annoyance I have with it is I had to add an ip6tables command for every entry in my firewall script.

>>61867694
You can still NAT with IPv6 so you can have your IPs set in a row. For example on my network my servers IPv4 is 10.0.0.2 and it's IPv6 is something like 2001:abunchofshit:2.

>>61863345
It still causes problems, exposes security vulnerabilities and gives no benefits whatsoever so I disable it.

>>61864716
Thanks for the read

>>61865723
it still lets you route traffic without NAT

Yes, although my ISP seems to give and take away my IPv6 address seemingly at random. I guess they're still working on it.

>>61863345
Quantum entanglement based wireless communication and all devices having a public IPV6 is my ideal future. A true peer to peer Internet.