zlacker

>>mouse_+(OP)
Back in the days of blaster, if you were connected to a network with infected machines or had a public IP address because you were connected straight into your cable modem, you would get infected in the windows installer before it finished installing. Nowadays, everything is behind NAT and there aren't any infected Windows XP machines left on your local network, so that's not a problem anymore.

>>jmgao+rb4
For some reason whenever somebody suggests that NAT might have security benefits, there is usually some hysterical screeching about how that isn't true. Often seen in IPv6 discussions.

>>lupusr+cd4
because it's unnecessary to get the same benefit. Being behind a firewall would have the same effect (and any ipv6 deployment will have this), it's just that NAT requires this. It's like saying eating a spoonfull of cinnamon has health benefits because it hydrates you when you have to drink a glass of water afterwards: you could just drink the water.

>>rcxdud+1f4
I don't quite understand what you mean by "any ipv6 deployment will have this". When my ISP switched to IPv6, my internal devices were exposed to the internet and the only thing that stopped the incredible amount of bot traffic was my own on-device firewall that I explicitly turned on and configured. Luckily I don't have any smarthome stuff, not sure how I'd configure a firewall on a lightbulb. These devices didn't have a public IPv4 before that. And a bonus - the ISP didn't say anything about this possible consequence, just "we're making some changes".

NAT has more benefits - I don't want anyone to know how many devices I have at home, I don't want anyone to know which one I'm using to access their website, I don't want anyone to try guess the OS and version of my devices, etc. And now I'm scared to have a simple DLNA media server because I can't just install WireGuard on the TV. I'm probably going to buy a router and make my own NAT soon (don't have access into the ISP modem).

I felt better when the whole municipality had a single IP address. A lot of bullshit ads - means the targeting wasn't working. Now they're way too good.

>>throwa+7i4
> When my ISP switched to IPv6, my internal devices were exposed to the internet and the only thing that stopped the incredible amount of bot traffic was my own on-device firewall that I explicitly turned on and configured.

When my (previous) ISP switched on IPv6 none of my internal devices could be connected to because my Asus did stateful packet inspection and only allowed in replies to connections that were previously initiated.

> NAT has more benefits - I don't want anyone to know how many devices I have at home, I don't want anyone to know which one I'm using to access their website

Given that temporary IPv6 addresses tend to rotate every 24 hours it will kind of hard to track individual devices by IP in a 2^64 address space.

You could rotate addresses 10 million times per second, using each only once, and it would take over 5000 years to exhaust a single /64.

> I felt better when the whole municipality had a single IP address. A lot of bullshit ads - means the targeting wasn't working. Now they're way too good.

I now have to use a ISP-supplied router (for GPON), but when I still had my Asus on the DSL/IPv6 ISP I could tell it to reboot every night and I would get a new IPv4 address and a new IPv6 prefix every day.