Having working network faster? Less connection issues?
Avoiding huge headache in the future?
IPv6 is not premium private club, it is a temporary barrier that it already getting smaller and smaller. I see it as the priority is working reliable network, the “everyone aspect” is part of it, but not to the extent of being a barrier itself.
If it is only about tradeoff what it brings vs. how many people it would exclude, then it would be nice to have debate about it. I would like to know more about the demographic reasons, that sounds weird to me.
Not saying this is the case, but sometimes I don’t get why there is so much fear from the IPv6. When phones go form 2G to 3G, 4G and so on, people say “yeah whatever”, learn something new and get new phone, but with IPv4 (or Windows XP ) I have seen many stubborn people defending the “good old” even if the new was less work for them.
Yes half, open connections create a slow dos attack. So not overburdening with traffic, but excusing possible connection pool, leading to DOS.
Worth a thread to discuss in detail. FYI we did previously petition folk and gave out tests. It was not great, actually, but it will change over time.
I agree with @happybeing we must include everyone, so even missing 1% who cannot get ip6 is an issue. So we would need tunnels etc. or some way to resolve that. However, if we could get 70/80/90 with ip6 then … a good debate
Maybe because of unjustified complexity.
With 2G → 3G → 4G people see benefits and know why they need to upgrade.
But in case of IPv6 many people are fine with NAT (ISPs even more fine with it, they can sell scarce resource).
And on top of that people need to learn about IPv6 specifics.
Firewall rules gets more complex, lots of different types of addresses becomes used simultaneously.
That’s not a good comparison because when they upgrade the network it remains compatible with older phones. Also, even brand new phones support the older standards.
The question here is whether it is worth making the network simpler (not faster I think), and maybe cutting out some development while making it inaccessible to large numbers of certain means or geography, and hindering adoption by reducing network effects.
I don’t see significant advantages and I do see considerable disadvantages.
Also, to make this change you need to make a strong argument because it breaks one of the fundamentals of Safe Network.
Other articles are available - please post links to what you consider more correct/authoritative. There is a LOT of misunderstanding about IPv6 and I have no illusions bout my own (lack of) knowledge. The purpose of this thread is to share the best of the knowledge and debunk the misunderstandings, so I am very pleased you challenge the content of that link.
My ISP is sending me a new router which may or may not prove IPv6 capable. The support tech I talked to was aware of IPv6 but she had never had cause to discuss it with a customer before in 3yrs working for the ISP. I expect that is fairly typical.
Waay back, prob 2003-4 ish I decided that I would upskill myself in IPv6. Never got much further than a few tunnelling experiments with fellow Linux User Group members. Certainly got no interest when I mentioned it in interviews for networking positions back then, so it fell by the wayside and I have forgotten most of what I learned.
Apparently the MAC address is no longer used in the current standard. He covers this at the 7 min mark. Great overview of the benefits and challenges of the current implementation in this video.
Also this comment on the video is very interesting:
Rob you cannot … I tried back in 2000s to push for NAT in IPv6, something that creates amazing security for the home, as the cache has to add the entry from an outgoing, especially if you own your own box and the ISP is not doing anything cheeky. Without NAT your whole network is exposed. Second problem is the link local annoyance, like Apple refuses to allow you to switch it off, as do others, like on the router you mention for a reason, it leaves a hole, at least in the GUI, the multicast L2 is very intrusive and can bunny hop, so just having Link Local does not help. Even if you use an IPv6 VPN it is incredible privacy violating. It should be switched off & blocked. I developed DS-lite, and pushed it worldwide, so you never had to use IPv6 in the home. So when you say multiple people having the same address that is what DS-lite does, so as long as your gateway, ISP internal interface address, is a private IPv4 only, 192 etc, and IPv6 public only externally, that weird Hex starting with 2, then you are almost guaranteed to be using DS-lite and incredible safe as you are using nested NAT, one in the ISP network, and one locally inside your network. Microsoft hated me for that As long as you do not use IPv6 only services then you will fine for the next 40 years unless someone tries to force it, but then we are developing IPv4 private to IPv6 NAT, so should be ok when it happens. & please you need to explain EUI-64. and mac addresses placed inside the link local and L3 IPv6 addresses, as this is a major security risk. Always switch off ALL of IPv6 in your local network.
Hey, I just removed the safe file from /usr/local/bin in order to get ready for the next iteration. Is that enough, or should I remove something else too?
Personally I make /usr/local/bin/safe a symlink to ~/.safe/cli/safe
but that approach may not suit everyone - especially if they are uncomfortable with using sudo or modifying their PATH env variable
Its been that long since I installed an actual release… I am 96.4521% agog.
) I have seen many stubborn people defending the “good old” even if the new was less work for them.
As long as you do not use IPv6 only services then you will fine for the next 40 years unless someone tries to force it, but then we are developing IPv4 private to IPv6 NAT, so should be ok when it happens. & please you need to explain EUI-64. and mac addresses placed inside the link local and L3 IPv6 addresses, as this is a major security risk. Always switch off ALL of IPv6 in your local network.
