>IPv6 was made to be an improvement to IPv4
>but it's so flawed and insecure, no one is moving to it
What went wrong?
>>62132717
>>but it's so flawed and insecure, no one is moving to it
[citation needed]
>citations needed
>>62132717
>insecure
What's insecure about it
>everything has an accessible IP address
Firstly, ever heard of firewalls? Your gateway router will simply not forward traffic to your host, unless you have an outgoing connection. Most, if not all, ISP-provided router/WiFI AP/DSL modem combos already come with this feature.
Secondly, NAT is not a security feature: https://blog.webernetz.net/2013/05/21/why-nat-has-nothing-to-do-with-security/
Not to mention that jews working in ISPs will probably still charge you for IP ranges, so you'd have to use NAT anyway.
>Router solicitation attacks
Only if you use stateless autoconfiguration, which nobody uses anyway. The same goes for "but my MAC address is part of my IP address" argument, most networks will use DHCPv6.
>>62132717
Hehe, don't trouble yourself, keep using IPv6, it's the best. :^)
>>62132717
Y-you have no idea what you are taking about
G-go and re-read your comptia books....
Fucking dev ops thinking they understand anything about ipv4 or ipv6
>>62132717
Good 40% of my traffic is on ipv6. Around 60% of my dns request is done on ipv6 too. I see far more attacks in my ids happening over ipv4 then ipv6.
>Oh wait this is a bait.