• RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    0·
    1 year ago

    Why should we care? So address space may run out eventually - that’s our ISPs’ problem.

    Other than that I actually don’t like every device to have a globally unique address - makes tracking even easier than fingerprinting.

    That’s also why my VPN provider recommends to disable IPv6 since they don’t support it.

      • Avatar_of_Self@lemmy.worldEnglish
        0·
        1 year ago

        You’d better hope that you can NAT ipv6 because if you aren’t behind a CGNAT and then your LAN is completely exposed without a NAT you’re very likely going to have devices exploited.

        NATs on people’s boundary has been doing pretty much all of the heavy lifting for everyone’s security at home.

        • orangeboats@lemmy.world
          0·
          1 year ago

          The word you are looking for is firewall not NAT.

          NAT does not provide security whatsoever. If the NAT mapped your (internal IP, internal port) to a certain (external IP, external port) and you do not have a firewall enabled, everyone can reach your device by simply connecting to that (external IP, external port).

          I haven’t seen routers that do not come with IPv6 firewalls enabled by default.