Of course I do.Do you run IPv6 in your home networks?
If yes, why?
Yes. Of course, the IPv4 network uses private addresses and therefore does need NAT. But as IPv6 is preferred, this is only a clumsy fallback when connecting to IPv4-only services.Also do you run dual stack
Yes, for about a year now.Do you run IPv6 in your home networks?
Dual stack.If yes, why? Also do you run dual stack or do you run NAT64 and DNS64?
So... basically you cannot escape from NAT yet? Using IPv6 does not solve this problem of yours.Of course I do.
- I don't need crappy NAT, so end-to-end communication doesn't suffer from its shortcomings and bugs.
- With IPv4, I'm lucky to get a single public address. With IPv6, /64 and even /56 prefixes are more or less for free.
- I'm prepared. ISPs employing NAT themselves (CGNAT) because they don't have enough IPv4 addresses for all their customers any more, is probably the last escalation step in an astonishing history of keeping something alive that doesn't fit any more since many many years.
- I can reach IPv6-only services (e.g. FreeBSD's official package builders are interesting from time to time).
- With a tunnel offered by HE, I even get a static prefix and reverse DNS delegation (that's why I prefer that over the dynamic prefix offered by my ISP).
- Well, I need no stinking NAT…
Yes. Of course, the IPv4 network uses private addresses and therefore does need NAT. But as IPv6 is preferred, this is only a clumsy fallback when connecting to IPv4-only services.
I do not use IPv6 in my home network, mostly because I have been intellectually lazy and I have not learned how the address allocation works.Hi,
I have possibility do deploy IPv6 in my home network. Is it worth it, except to learn new tech
Do you run IPv6 in your home networks?
If yes, why? Also do you run dual stack or do you run NAT64 and DNS64?
There's no escape from NAT with IPv4 of course, there just aren't any addresses left. Of course IPv6 solves this problem. While there are very few v6-only services, there are a LOT of dual-stack services, and using v6 with them, no NAT is involved.So... basically you cannot escape from NAT yet? Using IPv6 does not solve this problem of yours.
NAT doesn't protect anything. A somewhat "good" NAT implementation tries to route as much traffic as possible, this includes remembering outgoing ports and route back there even from other peers, helping online games, telephony, etc.In a sense, NAT protects most of the clueless Internet users today. I can foresee when people finally get rid of IPv4 globally a new big wave of successful attacks and more powerful botnets once everybody has a publicly accessible IP address.
Then you don't use it as a router but merely as a modem. That's btw what I do, cause I prefer my own firewall over the one built into such a device. But it isn't the default configuration and it isn't what average Joe will do.When you PPP through your router nothing is filtered
It's always a good idea to expect own errors and have more than one line of defense when it comes to security.&why would you need filtering if you make sure you don't run services ?