On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 9:23 AM Hunter Fuller <hf0002+na...@uah.edu> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 11:16 AM William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: > > > There isn't really an advantage to using v4 NAT. > > I disagree with that one. Limiting discussion to the original security > > context (rather than the wider world of how useful IPv6 is without > > IPv4), IPv6 is typically delivered to "most people" without border > > security, while IPv4 is delivered with a stateful NAT firewall. > > Maybe this is the disconnect. Who delivers v6 without a firewall? > > I've done a lot of T-Mobile and Comcast business connections lately, > and those certainly both provide a firewall on v4 and v6. I'll admit > I'm not currently well-versed in other providers (except ones that > don't provide v6 at all...).
Hi Hunter, You may be right. I haven't ordered SOHO service in a long time and in fairness you were talking about Joe's Taco Shop not Joe's home network. I -suspect- that the wifi router provided for Joe's home network doesn't do much more than plain routing on the IPv6 side but I do not know that for a truth. I ordered my wave and comcast services without a router and I didn't keep the centurylink router long enough to test whether it did any filtering on IPv6. I noticed no knobs for IPv6 filtering or port forwarding, so I suspect it did not. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin b...@herrin.us https://bill.herrin.us/