873
We don't talk about IPv5 (lemmy.world)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev
198 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 22 points 1 year ago (5 children)

And I would consider a detailed argument on why it is more secure to disable it to be a good reason.

Personally? I consider an IT team who don't know how to secure an ipv6 enabled network to not be competent. But that is a different conversation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    My detailed explanation at my old job is that the dev team was full of idiots who hardcoded ipv4 addresses into their fucking code. Seriously. When we migrated from data center to cloud they had to go patch everything. The CTO wouldn't do shit about it and the director was just there riding things out until retirement.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (2 children)

    It has less eyes on it due to it being less popular. It also introduces an extra vector of attack.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    It does not have less eyes on and it's 50% of Google traffic.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    Think they mean local networks.

    If an IT department carefully curates IPv4 but ignores IPv6, then a rogue actor can set up a parallel IPv6 network largely without being noticed.

    IPv6 can be managed, just that it is a blindside for a lot of these departments.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent