Nowadays I consider IPv4 address scarcity almost a feature, because of rate limiting and DDoS mitigation in general.

chasing0entropy 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

This guy cyber securities. Last thing I want are an infinite number of additional attack vectors on what will inevitably be a feeding frenzy of zero day exploits(not in the protocol but the implementation)

▲

TacticalCoder 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> Nowadays I consider IPv4 address scarcity almost a feature ...

The real godsend of IPv4 is that it accidentally forced NAT.

This saved, through the decades, hundreds of millions of vulnerable machines from being directly exposed and owned.

I consider IPv4 saved us from Windows botnets affecting nearly the entire world.

No, NAT is not security. But accidentally it prevented oh-so-many machines from getting owned.

When I got my first Internet connection I could literally access other people's Windows machine for my ISP was putting me on the same LAN as other people. I'd do silly things like have "Your Windows machine is insecure" printed on their printers. This was in IPv4 times: my ISP would put me on a subnet with 256 other machines (I'm talking about times where a 28.8 modem was still a thing btw).

I cannot being to imagine the total and complete chaos had IPv6 existed back then.

People don't understand how insecure and wild things were back in the days.

IPv4 saved the Internet, accidentally, thanks to NAT.

	▲	7bit 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The only thing NAT achieved is that it leads people like you, who know little about it to believe it somehow increased security, which is completely wrong. Any Firewall can simply block all incoming traffic and it would have the same effect as NAT, without the computational overhead that NAT incurs...