• qaz@lemmy.worldOP
      0·
      2 years ago

      I meant “ISP’s use CGNAT over IPv6” as ISP’s use CGNAT instead of IPv6 to solve IPv4 address limit issues, not as using IPv6 through CGNAT, although some do use IPv6 through CGNAT for backwards compatibility with IPv4 only devices.

    • interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
      01·
      2 years ago

      If it makes tracking hard to impossible then its BASED The end to end principle died in 1994, I’m sad too that we can’t all be one happy family, but let it go.

  • henfredemars@infosec.pubEnglish
    0·
    2 years ago

    All consumer and enterprise equipment made in the last 10+ years natively support IPv6.

    I object to this statement. You can buy name brand routers today that don’t implement it properly. Sure, they route packets, but they have broken stateless auto configuration or don’t respect DHCPv6 options correctly, and the situation is made worse because you don’t know how your ISP implements IPv6 until you try it.

    God help you if you need a firewall where you can open ports on v6. Three years ago I bought one that doesn’t even properly firewall IPv6.

    I tested a top-of-the-line Netgear router to find that it doesn’t support opening ports and once again doesn’t correctly support forwarded IP DHCPv6, which even if that works correctly, your Android clients can’t use it 🫠 Decades later there’s no consensus on how it should function on every device. This is a severe problem when you are a standard.

    The state of IPv6 on consumer hardware is absolute garbage. You have to guess how your ISP implements it if at all, and even then you’re at the mercy of your limited implementation. If you’re lucky it just works with your ISP router. If you’re not, it’s a PITA.

    EDITs: spell corrections and clarification.