Advantages of IPv6 as a consumer?

As long as it still has enough IP addresses with IPv4 and I am not forced to use IPv6, I have deactivated it. There will come a time when it could no longer work with IPv4, wait and drink tea.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6

That’s where the dog is buried, as the saying goes. There are no more V4 addresses.

IPv6 will bring better quality of services.

Since a lot of things can also be implemented with IPv4 and corresponding IPv6 services are missing, you just don’t notice it 🙂

But NAT in particular is a problem that will only get worse in the future. With a home connection you only notice a little of it, especially with more “special” applications.

But things that no longer work as smoothly on the mobile network as they do at home have their origins, among other things. also in NAT. In addition, Swisscom DSL connections (DSL Start) are already operated with CGNAT.

IPv4 will definitely not get any better in the future, but that is clear to most people.

The loss of NAT is only a small loss from a security perspective. It may be that this offers protection from connections desired from the outside. Many devices, if not practically all, build a tunnel for communication that is not just used for pure function. This puts the security through NAT alone into perspective again. Swisscom routers that independently configure port forwarding using UPNP do not improve this situation either.

Therefore, you will be able to deal with the firewall configuration, which will probably be or can be even more logical and simpler for the consumer than NAT. (Swisscom routers have an activated IPv6 firewall by default which at least meets the “security standard” of NAT)

Especially in very simple networks, it makes sense to activate IPv6 in order to benefit from better quality in the future.

In “pure consumer mode” IPv6 can be operated more simply and more stable than IPv4. Potential sources of error such as DHCP servers (think of the Pirelli debacle, for example) and duplicate IPs are avoided, and the time of buggy IPv6 stacks has been over for a long time (roughly since the market launch of WinXP and OSX Panther in 2003).

Unfortunately, NAT is often equated with a firewall, which is not the case. A NAT alone does not offer any real security; only a normally active DENY ALL firewall rule on the NAT router provides external security. Every IPv6-capable consumer router I know of blocks everything from the WAN to the LAN by default, so the security is at least on par. In addition, a port scan on the 192.168.1.0/24 network takes a few seconds, while one on a /64 network would take many millennia. Thanks to privacy extensions, data protection on L3 is on par with IPv4 and NAT.

Admittedly, IPv6 only brings indirect benefits to the end customer. The software manufacturers benefit directly from this: thanks to IPv6, they can concentrate their development resources more on the actual functionality of their products and no longer need to waste them on technical crutches such as NAT, UPnP, port forwarding, split-horizon DNS and such brain contortions. The DirectAccess feature of newer Microsoft operating systems would be one such example.

The only disadvantages of IPv6 that I know of are:

• Slightly smaller MTU on a Swisscom connection than with IPv4
• The “OMG-what-kind-of-a-complicated-address” reaction from some users
• The panicked short-circuit IPv6 countermeasures taken by the same users

In short: IPv6 does not bring any disadvantages to the consumer, but it does bring many indirect and occasional direct advantages. So IMO there is no rational reason to deactivate it.

---

@daffy2 wrote:

---

@Tux0ne wrote:

Especially in very simple networks, it makes sense to activate IPv6 in order to benefit from better quality in the future.

---

Quality in the sense of “enforcing QoS over the entire route”?

---

Not only. Quality is also in the sense of what @PowerMac mentioned regarding software manufacturers, i.e. services.

In order to motivate something like this, a large IPv6 penetration is desirable, although Swisscom (even if it is only a workaround) has done a good job with 6RD and has repeatedly activated IPv6 on entire blocks of routers without the customers noticing much.

There was once a small load problem on the Motorola router when the firewall was activated. Otherwise, the IPv6 changeover was absolutely problem-free for the end customer.

The Swisscom technicians are therefore instructed not to deactivate IPv6, as 99.9% of the time problems are not caused by this.

But that’s how it is. If you don’t know what to do next, the farmer deactivates what he doesn’t know 😄

---

@Tux0ne wrote:

---

@daffy2 wrote:

---

@Tux0ne wrote:

Especially in very simple networks, it makes sense to activate IPv6 in order to benefit from better quality in the future.

---

Quality in the sense of “enforcing QoS over the entire route”?

---

But what it is. If you don’t know what to do next, the farmer deactivates what he doesn’t know 😄

---

I’ve been working with IPv6 almost from the very beginning. But why should I activate IPv6 in the private network without any visible/noticeable benefit and thus unnecessarily complicate my life through, among other things, the more complex troubleshooting in a mixed network? What makes sense in the WAN/provider backbone and possibly large company networks does not necessarily mean that it makes sense in private home networks. The fact that IPv4 is now 33 years old doesn’t count as a sole argument for me.

What do you think the advantage of IPv6 is? The only relevant difference to IPv4 is that IPv6 has a larger address space. The IPv4 addresses have run out.

Where are IP addresses most used? Not in company networks (even large ones) and certainly not in the provider backbones. But with the end customers, as there are millions of them. So it certainly makes sense to bring IPv6 to end customers if you want IPv6 to be used. IPv6 only works end-to-end: If the backbone supports IPv6 but the customer’s Anschluss does not (e.g. because the user deactivates it), no IPv6 traffic will flow over the backbone.

IP (v4 or v6) is infrastructure, like a pipe installation for drinking water. If a customer has IPv6, he will watch his YouTube film via IPv6. The service will not be any better or different because of this. However, the infrastructure (IPv6) supports more devices so that the Internet can continue to grow.

IPv6 is not something that benefits individual users as long as they still get public IPv4 addresses. IPv6, on the other hand, brings great benefits to the entire Internet community, but only if it is used widely.

---

IPv6@swisscom wrote:

……

IPv6 is not something that benefits individual users as long as they still get public IPv4 addresses. IPv6, on the other hand, brings great benefits to the entire Internet community, but only if it is used widely.

---

Hi,

I have to honestly admit that I haven’t really thought much about the topic yet (like many others).

As long as IPv4 is running and you are not forced to switch to IPv6, many people will probably not switch on their own; simply because you are not yet aware of the topic/problem and/or you cannot see/notice your own advantage in the change.

I find this page quite informative to read: http://www.ipv6-portal.de/

Greetings, Thomas

I also see absolutely no need to deal with it at the moment.

even. I feel the same way too 🙂