I remember times before NAT and SSL

You could share things easily, sure, but anyone could get hacked pretty easily and very targetted.

After NAT, sharing was still easy lots of 'piracy' apps, various messengers with NAT passthrough

Both before and after you needed to be technical, you can't ask someone that doesnt know about computers to set up an FTP server, and if they did it would be a nightmare and they'd likely share their whole drive

Same goes for anything else.

Anyway, we'll get the whole non-nat with IPv6, let's see what that brings

▲

teekert 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It brings the requirement for a firewall on every endpoint with a unique address. My Phone often has an ipv6 address (found out this holiday wen I couldn't resolve one of sites because of an orphan ipv6 entry nobody noticed), and has little problems. Perhaps there is also "firewalling" on the router and the phone can't even have incoming connections. Not sure. In any case, the phone seems to do fine.

▲

gatio an hour ago | parent | next [-]

> Perhaps there is also "firewalling" on the router and the phone can't even have incoming connections. Not sure.

Correct. Every home wifi router worth its salt will firewall incoming connections by default, whether v4 or v6. It's then possible (unless it's some shitty ISP-provided locked down device) to add specific allow rules, or allow all for a particular client.

egress is typically wide open, although sometimes they lock down particular protocols by default (eg. smtp, bittorrent)

▲

mittensc 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Not sure. In any case, the phone seems to do fine.

That's mostly because a phone is very locked down, can you run an accessible ftp server on your phone?

It's also not windows

▲

c0balt 2 hours ago | parent [-]

For android, the answer is yes (without rooting being required).

	▲	iggldiggl an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> without rooting being required If you want to use the standard port, that's only true as of very recently, though, see https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/218578943#comment17

▲

kijin 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Phone OSs tend to pay a lot more attention to security than the crap they put on consumer-grade routers, "smart" TVs and cheap webcams.

I would invest in a proper firewall for the entire home before opening up anything to the world, IPv6 or not.

▲

eru 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Anyway, we'll get the whole non-nat with IPv6, let's see what that brings

I'll believe it when I see it. So far it doesn't look like IPv6 will win anytime soon.

▲

silon42 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I absolutely plan to NAT my home, I don't see a good reason to do otherwise.

I don't see a reason why my machine addresses should change over time... then again, most shouldn't have direct internet access anyway, a http proxy on firewall should be enough.

▲

lstodd 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Well, any 3G or later mobile backbone is SIP+SCTP over IPv6. So in many ways it won already

	▲	hdgvhicv 16 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		My phone, on 4g, is not IPv6 At home it can be if I connect t to my ip6 ssid, but there’s a stateful firewall which may as well nat.
	▲	eru an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Weird, I used to remember that going to test-ipv6.com on my mobile (on 4G and 5G) used to fail all the tests. But today it passes. Well, good to know!