The future of the internet is in your hands, goy

The future of the internet is in your hands, goy.
Choose wisely.

Attached: morpheus.jpg (750x693, 124.39K)

Other urls found in this thread:

t. privacytard

IPv6 because no larger IP addressing system will ever be needed by humanity.

1 layer of nat upon ipv6

only if the user can control it. cgn is gay and anyone that puts it anywhere should be shot

t. tard

Can someone explain to me why IPv6 is bad for privacy?

that's literally how tor works niggerfaggot cumslut senpaikun

Say goodbye to dynamic ip


Imagine every security camera on the planet being able to be remotely accessed with no type of firewall between it and the botnet. That's IPv6 in a nutshell.

So put a firewall in between problem solved.

NAT is probably the single worst hack in the history of computer networking.
IPv6 is not only a better protocol, it also finally allows truly decentralized communication, as it was always intended.
NAT instead makes this unnecessarily complicated, needing to resort to shit like port forwarding.
NAT was never intended as a privacy measure, and it still isn't one. It was nothing but a hack artificially extend the life of IPv4 when it should really have been replaced years ago.
A well-configured firewall will already give you all the so-called "security benefits" of NAT anyway.

It's not, at least, not worse than IPv4.

why are the ipv6 haters always so retarded.. ofc you would use link local v6 addresses for those things instead of public routable ones

that's going to be illegal. the ipv6 address is going to be burned into the device like a mac address and it will become illegal to spoof it, infact spoofing will be easily detected because all traffic will have to register with the ipv6 database and fake/duplicate ipv6 addresses will be easily detected.

my ISP/carrier already decided that the Cisco PreSales officer was right, and that 40 Layer NAT is not only cheaper, but reminds them of their glory days using circuit switched networks
fuck circuit switchers and telecom inbreds, packet switching roolz

idk how a massive nat system can be cheaper than enabling ipv6. bet that most hardware that matters already support it too since stuff like isp routers get replaced often because they die from the heavy use.


Unless you have something to back up these theories, this post is meaningless.

grug no understand rockv6, grug want simple rock adressing

IPv4 actually allows you to scan the entire net in reasonable time, which is much better for decentralized comm.

You have no idea what you're talking about.
With NAT+IPv4, it's effectively impossible to _directly_ connect to a machine accepting connections _behind the NAT router_ without resorting to port forwarding.
P2P applications in particular greatly suffer from this problem.
With IPv6, and no NAT, this issue is completely avoided.

What a retard


I'm not saying ipv4 nat is good, but ipv6 is untrustworthy. I remember reading something about backdoored ipsec.

I choose IPFS over I2P routed through Tor over a derelict russian spy satellite repurposed as a VPS.

No that's wrong. Each IPv6 device is allowed to have multiple v6 addresses right now. In contrast if you want to have multiple v4 addresses, your machine is required to have multiple network interfaces.

Without NAT, people need to run firewalls. Forwarding a port or creating a firewall exception is not that different. With IPv6, if you have multiple machines in your home network, people on the internet can acquire some information about your home network, whereas with NAT, they don't know how many machines are in the network.

What am I reading here? 2deep4me

it's impossible to _directly_ connect to a machine anyway.
IPv6 means more work for sysops.
IPv4 means more work for netops.

I disable IPv6 in every way possible, specially because the overhead it makes simply destroys internet stability.
There are several problems associated with this crap tentative of solution, from telephones not working to wifi disconnecting randomly and routers frying.

It's bad, it's even admitdly bad even by its own creators and it's being pondering for reconsideration by everyone (isp and other organs).

So, whoever is defending this shit, it really seems like a gaymer who just like newer stuff for the sake of updating and don't know shit about how broken IPv6 is.

ipv6 header looks more comfy

Attached: ipv4-ipv6.gif (1203x678, 29.35K)

So, if you have an IPv6 address range that your ISP has given you, different computers on your network will have different public IPs within that address range. This way, your home network structure is more transparent than in IPv4 + NAT scenario. With NAT, they don't know how many computers you have, unless higher levels (web browsers, operating systems, etc) are leaking information.

Keep them in the dark. Why would anyone want to share such info?

you won't keep them in the dark because ipv6 software will see privacy as unnecessary.
after all you want people to _directly_ connect to your home appliances right?

I don't know Reddit, you tell me who you're trying to convince to use IPv6 while you use whatsapp handle for italics.

Gee I wonder why ISP's dont want ipv6. Maybe because content filters become impossible short of deepacket inspection since dns becomes meaningless.

Hmm but wait it gets better
Stop using the botnet SIP service and use tox you faggot
What does this have to do with ipv6?
You mean frying from the NSA attacking them individually instead of slurping up data by tricking client into nation-state controlled NAT's? Because IPV6 has way less bloat needed to run at the ip level specifically because of the way SLAAC works over the current dhcp4 system? Oh and then there's no point to dsn poisining anymore nor to NAT'ing dns IP's to what you want since you are directly connecting to where you want short of a MITM at the protocol level, which means more CPU power needed for attackers like (you).

That's because you're a theory faggot and don't have to deal with it.
Have you even tried searching anything I said? The IPv6 problem in Android is severe for instance, a very tiring problem and recurring to death for anyone working in IT.

ipv6 on android just works tho. even on the really shitty old android 4.1 device that i have

Oh, look! If it doesn't happen to you it means it doesn't exist!

You guys could at least try to understand anything about the matter before jumping the gun with textbook speech.
And fucking also:

What happened to this board again?

its always the glowniggers and idiots that hate ipv6. they want people behind restrictive nats so they cant connect to things freely and so its easier to spy them.

Attached: glow.jpg (1024x544, 59.6K)

you know more about whatsapp than I do. I'm mocking the _directly_ guy above. Since there's nothing fucking direct about IP.

solution: kick africa, india, mexico, the middle east, israel and china off the internet, and ban all IoT devices. there are now enough v4 addresses for everyone, and the world is now slightly less cancerous.

its more direct without a nat thats basically a firewall that you dont control. some people need those incoming connections too and they are impossible with cgnat

I'm not a net pro but isn't there a bit of a symmetry here re: glow in the darks? NAT allows anons more obscurity for their networks but also allows CIAniggers the same advantage, no? Seems like the preferable solution is very dependent on specifics. Also, the glowniggers probably just dial up your IME if they need to know something... does anybody know whether those little buggers set up port forwarding with routers discreetly? Can we use Wireshark to sniff Intel spook bullshit?

Attached: 1 tooth Zuckerberg.jpg (542x544, 42.99K)

nat does not give any privacy to the average user. the internal ip of the connection is just another tracking method and the isp knows who used that ip even if you are behind the nat. like always the ipv6 haters are idiots that dont know what they are talking about. its common here to hate things that you dont understand.

This is Zig Forums today, guys, a Fed trying to convince people to adopt a failed standard that even the very internet companies aren't willing to do.

Go try to fix a tap house when its system gets clogged by IPv6 during peak hours, making all the 30 taps offline and with the owner trying to sue you.

I know that the NAT/local net thing don't give much advantage, my point was just that the attack surface for a personal network is reduced by NAT. Is that untrue?

The key point I tried to make is that even if NAT does offer a bit of obscurity to local nets, the very same grants obscurity to everything we connect to (which seems a bigger problem for most--hence my comment about specifics).

Attached: matrixpepe.jpeg (1440x900, 1.21M)

And in fact, it's useless to discuss about IPv6 because its adoption will probably be abandoned in favor of 5G with GUID. We'll escape the madness.

but you cant connect to anything if everyone is behind nat because those things wont allow incoming connections.

almost everything supports ipv6 already. all the sites that people use and most isps too

this is what a total LARPer looks like.

this is what someone who knows nothing at all looks like.

this is what someone actually technologically knowledgeable about a subject looks like

you must be some lazy overpaid sysadmin retard. thats the kind of reaction they would have when they have to actually do something

I get paid a decent amount to be this lazy.
feels good man.

IPv6 has an adoption rate of 20%... 20 years after being introduced.

i dont really care as long as the nat cancer stays away from my networks. my experience with nat is that it kills performance and is unstable and somehow setting the connection to ipv6 only made it work much better.

Wow you are a total retard not to have noticed the performance benefits SLAAC gives clients and servers. You must be a glow in the dark as you can't even point out a single architectural problem with ipv6. All you do is go hurdur its different and what we have works for spying so don't break it goy. Fuck you and fuck ipv4. fuck the ip based internet too, but ipv6 is better then ipv4 for the adress space benefits, decreased attack surface by less complex software like dns servers being obsolute and dhcp servers being dead fucking simple and leaner for it. Then there's that whole security benefit of it forcing consumers to use a firewall they control instead of the MITM that NAT is. Oh and p2p works better and becomes very difficult to censor at the network layer and forces it to be protocol layer censoring which already has mitigations like obf4 which doublefucks the glowniggers such as yourself if you were a human and not a robot.

Attached: ipv6 (1)

Attached: ipv6 (4)

I guess you haven't noticed this, but there are more firewalls on planet Earth than there are atoms in the universe. ipv6 changes nothing about that.
nigger, you're high.
flush the drugs and get a job.
oh shit buying a ipv6 pillow case right now
I need this in my life

Unless you have a firewall. Firewalls can drop packets without an established session, and block imcp6 traffic. With SLAAC ISP doesn't enough have to know how many machines you have, or have DCHP logs.

If you put all your machines on the public internet without a firewall they are on the public internet without a firewall, and people can send them packets. Its not a suprise. Its not a reason to prefer IPv4 + NAT.

Your an idiot. IPv6 can't hurt your hardware, or drop your wireless. If it can, your hardware was broken by design. IPv6 Is fully usable.

Wrong. Using SLAAC you don't need dhcp6 and your ISP doesn't have to see how many devices you have. Plus you can deploy NAT on IPv6 anyway if you want it.

Your retarded. Do you want a read only internet subject to moderation by Youtube? Because thats how you get that. Having a publicly routable address isn't a security or privacy issue at all. Add a firewall, drop unrelated packets, don't use DHCPv6 if you don't want logs, use SLAAC. Having a publically routable address allows you to self host your blog, files, and use p2p applications.

he's posting in Zig Forums
he's not aware of how much software sucks

there are these things call 'webhosts'.
99% of the content that people put on social media, they could put on their own website for a tiny fraction of what you pay for your home internet. This comes with a ton of advantages vs. home hosting, and it doesn't require that something with a 20% rate of adoption after 20 years be suddenly adopted by everyone, and yet we still have massive centralization with social media.
ipv6 will not roll centralization back.

IP6 randomly frying routes is either an epic chain failure engineering story, or off the charts levels of retarded.
IPv6 keeps the infrastructure fundamentally "peer to peer" and "read write" rather than at an architectural level defining privileged actors who can host. There are reasons to self host, and reasons not to. But, having a public address allows you to decide for yourself. It also allows p2p. Some people don't want p2p, some people don't want to host anything, let them decide not to, but don't build it into the architecture.
If you want NAT on IP6 you can have it. Consumer routers can still ship with it.
NATing the internet is a disaster that will destroy p2p and self hosting.

It's still not fixed to this day.

taking back the stupid big allocations would work too. give everyone only one ip address and make them use routers with nat. its not something that the isp should be doing tho.

Will not. 4 Billion IP addresses, smallest allocation is a /30 block of 4 addresses. Essentially 1 Billion blocks of /4 to allocate including all test ranges, , and multicast. But there are something like 8 billion people, expected 10 billion. Your cellphone , home, and office have to be different subnets. IPv4 isn't enough.

IPv6 isn't enough either. That's why people will jump this generation and create something new.
That paper above lays some of the solutions, and we have already big companies working on a substitute.
Which means, IPv6 will never get its moment of shine.

I bet something will be done with the 5G networks, considering one plan ISPs have is to eliminate cable structure, so this could spark some revolution of sorts.

what i meant is those huge /24 and bigger blocks that were allocated to random companies that arent isps. give them all to isps that then give each customer one public ip and they then use a nat router if they want multiple devices behind it. thats not a problem since the user can control the nat

wtf are you talking about ? IPv6 is 2^128 address, that number is almost a whole IPv4 internet per person worth of addresses. What do you mean not enough.

what i meant is those huge /24 and bigger blocks that were allocated to random companies that arent isps. give them all to isps that then give each customer one public ip and they then use a nat router if they want multiple devices behind it. thats not a problem since the user can control the nat
Litterally not enough. I explained in my commented. If you did that, plus allocated all experiemental blocks, plus rewrote all IP clients to break 127/8 in to publically routable address, plus multicast ranges, you still only get 4 Billion addresses. Even if one address was assigned per person, it will not be enough. There will be ~10 billion people on planet. Further, you can't just assign everyone one address, you have to assign CIDR blocks to some portion of the network to interconnect LANS, some if you assign lots of /4's you lose lots off addresses. IPv4 is not viable without Carrier Grade NAT which limits the ability of people to self host and use p2p, and enforces centralization of the internet architecturally.

It's not only about numbers, how can you think it's only about that? Your whole conversation here was about numbers.
This is merely one of the issues, several issues.

i can live with it as long as they keep it like it currently is. real broadband that comes from a cable gets a public ip and mobile gets nat by default but has option to get a public ip too if you pay or sometimes even for free. that way the people that dont even know what a ip is(and only use their connection to post on social media) wont waste them.

You can build non-ip internets that are propetary and have gateways controlled by centralized entities, and huge carrier grade NAT deployments, but does that really look like the internet you want? It means limited choice of equipment to meet proprietary non-ip nets, it means beign subject to policy enforced by media gateways, it means being unable to self host, or use p2p. Laying the architecture to privledge ISPs more than they already are means centralizing the internet, and making net netruality not a matter of actively doing something, but a passive architecture feature.

Self hosting? P2P ? The network just doesn't work like that, WE are not doing anything to inhibit you. Just post your content on youtube/facebook? Oh their (((community standards))) forbid it? Well, its probably illegal then anyway.

most probably wont host anything on their phone and they can pay for the ip or use the provided ipv6 address if they really want to do that. all the mobile isps in my country support ipv6 so you can have that dual stack meme or nat/non nat ipv4 only or ipv6 only

Phones having a public routable address is a complex issue because users don't have root on phones, can't update phones or impose security measures, and OEMs are irresponsible about it. Phones shouldn't be that different than PCs and its scary that next generation computing devices are stripping user privileges to even run code - its a war against general purpose computing for the purpose of copyright that could end in more than just mass surveillance. In an ideal world, users could manage their phones, and updates would be timely. Perhaps phones could even be setup similiar to qubes/whonix, with a controllable firewall managing traffic to various containers. Phone users may not want to host, but may want to us p2p. Or maybe as mobile computers become more powerful, may be intrested in hosting niche static content on phones - specially as phablets replace laptops.

I don't see any reason to engineer a seperate layer 3 protocol for phones. Worse, I worry it will be used to impose carrier policy "passively" through architecture. It won't be them doing anything at all, it will be perceived as a natural technological consequence like cellphones disclosing your location to your cell provider as an architectural feature is legally you voluntarily sharing your location with a 3rd party, not subject to privacy or warrent requirements under "3rd party docterine".

It will just be, oh you want access to 8ch, but our media gateway for tmobilenet only has access to facebook and youtube. our engineers haven't written apps for every platform yet.

Because the external IP address of LAN and each individual device within said network are so capable of having the same address without crashing it. that's not how things work you faggot

Thats not how that works
You are so used to NAT you have no idea that NAT doesn't have to be a thing.

Its unlikely that an IP would be "burned in" because it would make routing a BITCH. Routing tables will become unwieldy which is why layer 2 addresses are burned in but only used locally, and layer 3 address are used to handle logical routing but are more hierarchical. Burning in layer 3 address would defeat the point of layer 3, but could be done if everything was directly connected to the internet, and there was an large central controller with routes to all devices based on bia's. It would be inefficient.

Its far more likely that government would introduce an mandatory state e-mail through the post office to register your accounts online with, or require service providers demand state ID before creating accounts. Becomes more possible after US creates centralized Federal ID system.

>it would make routing a BITCH unless there was a (((trusted routing provider))) to subscribe to
I did not come up with the All is botnet. meme for no reason user.

Only if you don't use firewall and have direct memory access through ethernet vpro. Even most cpus probably have 3G direct memory access and the wifi too.
SIM cards have a processor.

Its literally not. Its just a layer 3 address protocol with more addresses. Anything you can do with IPv4 you can do with IPv6. If you want NAT , you can have it. If you want firewalls you can have them. If you want DHCP you can have it. It also provides an autoconfigueration option that doesn't require dhcp servers called SLAAC which in conjunction with a firewall (+proxy server?) could prevent your from knowing how many machines you have while they all have publically routable addresses.

Sure is
Depends if they just play without reading the rules again.
Watch defcon17 on wimax. In the end, you can't beat hackers when they're hungry.
you can still crack wimax connections on other countries and you'll only get blocked once the base station detects your instance at a certain schedulen. actually you can go for about more than 10 users at the same time. try using port restricted than symmetrical NAT, works like charm

I wanted to say how it's good for the hackers but then again this site is being monitored by glows so I won't say it.
I do hope IPv6 takes off and we can hax again.

Zig Forums is actually ridiculous. ITT random people who little to nothing about how the internet works ranting about how IPv6 frys routers, will be burned into networking cards, let anyone access anything like firewalls don't exist, or a some kind of elaborate boon to "hackers" b/c ipv6 was default enabled dual stack and incompetent admins didn't enable firewall years ago. FYI ipv6 disabled by default on Cisco devices now b/c netadmins are retarded.


False. Clearly it is possible, otherwise we wouldn't be able to have this conversation.
And with IPv6 directly accepting connections from anywhere becomes trivial, which is a great help for P2P applications and similar.
I repeat that people who prefer IPv4+NAT over IPv6 lack basic knowledge about networking.

These are the people shitting on IPv6:

user, I don't want it to be easier to get connected directly to my machine, you know?
I wouldn't let you connect with me either.

Thats fine. Use a firewall to deny unestablished traffic. Or use NAT anyway. IPv6 doesn't exclude NAT. The correct answer isn't to fundamentally building a "read only" network by NATing everything. Its litterally a power grab for centralizing the net, and forbidding p2p.

we're not having this conversation _directly_. There are these things called 'routers' between us. It's much like tor, but with efficient rather than obscure routing.

don't know why you think anyone gives a shit about p2p. do you not have a job yet? even bittorrent is only gets opposition because it wrecks networks and sucks so much bandwidth that ISPs were forced to traffic shape or meter bandwidth the "pull a bandwidth out of a magician's hat" solution never happened even though the one ISP that did it would've gained a lot--weird.

I'm one of those torrentfags who downloads and uploads hundred of torrents in several pcs (6) using just one network.
NAT never failed me and I really don't know what that faggot is talking about, sounds like a ready-made excuse.

People on here will laugh at you, right up until they realize the system your describing already exists, and it's called dns.

DNS maps names to IPs.
DNS does a lot of other stuff as well, but it has nothing to do with routing between IPs.
Please add Border Gateway Protocol to your list of tops to review on wikipedia before pretending to be an expert on ipv6.

IPv6 is dead. No one likes it, no one is implementing it anymore, it's obsolete and there are already replacements for it.
Rest your case, hot head.

No one cares to use something that's broken and will bring them nothing. Your autism issues are optionally solved by it, at a cost, while there are other solutions out there.
Business today that rely on the internet to provide services cannot afford to use this crap.

Now, you're a waste of time. Farewell.


I'm behind a NAT router right now, and I just opened up a connection on my computer supporting IPv4 only. I'm not using port forwarding.
Can you connect to it? No. However, with IPv6 and no NAT, that would be trivial.
I hope you're just pretending to not know basic networking concepts.

*You* don't want it to be easier to get connected directly to your machine in your particular use case, and that's fine. A firewall will give you that even with IPv6.
For many applications (think any P2P applications, as I've already mentioned multiple times), being able to directly accept connections is a huge help. Without it, you either have to

And besides, I won't even mention the programming language responsible for them, I'll let HIM do it if he comes.


It unironically is. NAT was never meant as a security measure. That's just a lie that is repeated over and over to keep using NAT.
Whether it's a "sane default" or not is up to each network administrator to decide. With IPv6, the choice is easy, with IPv4 + NAT, not so much.
Besides, IPv6 does have benefits (something like 6lowpan would be unthinkable with IPv4, but I'm not going to pretend you've even heard of it). And pretty much everything you can do with IPv4 can be done with IPv6 unless you're retarded.

I don't care. You should stop caring. However we got here, what you attribute to NAT is a condition you should have, anyway.
benefit 1: a buzzword. if there were a real benefit here that you understood you could just say what it was.
benefit 2: being able to do the stuff you did with ipv4

Your attitude represents everything wrong with the computer world.
Not everything you don't know is a buzzword, user.