Withdrawl of IPv6 Technical Trial
I really want every device in my house to be directly addressable from the global internet [not].
NAT has the (accidental) advantage of largely preventing random people from accessing my internet capable devices scattered throughout my house.
Obviously a proper firewall does a better job.
There are several fairly major protocols that are broken by the absence of NAT - anything with any kind of P2P component appears to fail.
Anyway, who is going to buy me a decent IPV6 router?
Of course, following the Snowden revelations, the broadcast of ip addresses belonging to individual devices,
localised to particular rooms of a house just has to be unacceptable.
Or perhaps I should just email GCHQ with my IPV6 allocations?
This situation is bad enough at present.
NAT has the (accidental) advantage of largely preventing random people from accessing my internet capable devices scattered throughout my house.
Obviously a proper firewall does a better job.
There are several fairly major protocols that are broken by the absence of NAT - anything with any kind of P2P component appears to fail.
Anyway, who is going to buy me a decent IPV6 router?
Of course, following the Snowden revelations, the broadcast of ip addresses belonging to individual devices,
localised to particular rooms of a house just has to be unacceptable.
Or perhaps I should just email GCHQ with my IPV6 allocations?
This situation is bad enough at present.
I do have some sympathy with the argument regarding 'hiding' devices by default, and only opening access to them on request through a NAT. However, as you say, the same thing can, and arguably should, be done with a firewall and there's no reason why this should be any more difficult to achieve. Perhaps as a result of the removal of NAT, residential routers will have to face up to the issue and start providing this capability.
Even the NAT RFC itself says it is not intended to provide security in this way and should not be relied upon for such as it can introduce vulnerabilities given the uncertain failure mode. Furthermore, there is often an element of a false sense of security by relying on it because it only covers one attack vector leaving many others besides that still need covering.
As you mention, NAT solves one problem (address shortage) but at the expense of another (end to end connectivity). More to the point though, it is no longer able to do what it was once good for and thus a new protocol, with a larger address space, really is the only way foward. There's no other option on the table.
The Internet is a shared entity, and you are just a part of it as anyone else. It is your, and mine, presence on it - along with ever increasing numbers of other people/devices - that is making it creak and so I'm afraid we all must shoulder the burden of keeping it fit for purpose. If you want a 'decent IPv6 router' then who else but yourself should buy it? Why would you expect any different? If it makes you feel any different I'm sure your ISP could provide it... but you must recognise that you'll be paying for it one way or another?
With regards to e-mailing GCHQ to tell them your IPv6 allocations... by all accounts I don't think you even need to!
Seriously though, if you want privacy and anonymity there are several ways of achieving it way beyond that which your NAT provides, and which are not in any way hampered by whatever protocol and addressing scheme happens to be employed.
Even the NAT RFC itself says it is not intended to provide security in this way and should not be relied upon for such as it can introduce vulnerabilities given the uncertain failure mode. Furthermore, there is often an element of a false sense of security by relying on it because it only covers one attack vector leaving many others besides that still need covering.
As you mention, NAT solves one problem (address shortage) but at the expense of another (end to end connectivity). More to the point though, it is no longer able to do what it was once good for and thus a new protocol, with a larger address space, really is the only way foward. There's no other option on the table.
The Internet is a shared entity, and you are just a part of it as anyone else. It is your, and mine, presence on it - along with ever increasing numbers of other people/devices - that is making it creak and so I'm afraid we all must shoulder the burden of keeping it fit for purpose. If you want a 'decent IPv6 router' then who else but yourself should buy it? Why would you expect any different? If it makes you feel any different I'm sure your ISP could provide it... but you must recognise that you'll be paying for it one way or another?
With regards to e-mailing GCHQ to tell them your IPv6 allocations... by all accounts I don't think you even need to!
Seriously though, if you want privacy and anonymity there are several ways of achieving it way beyond that which your NAT provides, and which are not in any way hampered by whatever protocol and addressing scheme happens to be employed.
Since a move to IPV6 would cost money and cripple applications I use,
it makes sense for me to (selfishly) stick with IPV4 (and NAT).
IPV6 has no advantages for me.
it makes sense for me to (selfishly) stick with IPV4 (and NAT).
IPV6 has no advantages for me.
What exactly is stopping Plusnet deploying IPv6 to customers at the moment? Some ISPs have been offering the service for a long time but others seem to be dragging their feet. 
https://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,106125.msg979490.html#msg979490
Like I said, I'll post here when I have more I can put out
I was chatting to the network guys about it this morning.
Like I said, I'll post here when I have more I can put out
I was chatting to the network guys about it this morning.
Or asking when you'll be able / if you'll be willing to route any /56's out of any /64's we've picked up with tunnel brokers whilst waiting for a native implementation 
Quote from: MJN Even just knowing that there are target dates would be nice.
(...we'll leave pinning you down to find out when they are for Phase 2...;))
I want to give you some target dates. That good enough?
Quote from: avatastic Or asking when you'll be able / if you'll be willing to route any /56's out of any /64's we've picked up with tunnel brokers whilst waiting for a native implementation
/56 out of /64? Assuming you mean the other way around, there's no chance of that happening. Any prefixes you've obtained from a tunnel broker will have to be announced (and routed) by them. One of the key goals of the IPv6 addressing architecture is reduced routing table load and so route aggregation is critical.