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
[–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

publicly addressable does not mean publicly routable… your router would still not arbitrarily connect untrusted external devices to internal hosts

NAT has the property of a firewall only as an implementation detail. replacing NAT with an IPv6 firewall in the router is an upgrade in every conceivable way

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

    I'm aware of that, and didn't say otherwise?

    My comment wasn't even ipv6 specific, quite the opposite. The comment I was replying to also wasn't, and the implication that things would be better if everyone had a fixed IP(v4) was actually the specific privacy nightmare scenario I wanted to emphasize. That is the literal worst case of all.

    Things can be mitigated somewhat with IPv6, but also only to a degree. Here you'd (usually) have a static prefix and not IP. You then need to use the randomized suffix generation (on a host level, or in DHCPv6 if you're using that), and not all OS so this by default, but I think Windows does these days. Advertising data collectors, which means basically every web site, could just assume that your prefix is stable and the information they gain if they happen to be correct it's... uncomfortable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •