Reply to post:

You. Drop and give me 20... per cent IPv6 by 2023, 80% by 2025, Uncle Sam tells its IT admins after years of slacking

Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward

So would anyone actually put users real ipv6 addresses out on public? I am not talking about allowing incoming "connections" (ie. stateless)? Sometimes the expensive even if trivial is justified?

Also most orgs that I have seen do split DNS using some other internal hostname system. Keeping the internal structure secret.

And does IPv6 allow for mobility, NUP. So it's really nothing special.

Full disclosure, I don't guve a shit about the RFCs and I NAT IPv6 connections and use private IPv6 addresses internally. Its because it worked so well for IPv4.

As far as I can tell IPv6 means loss of privacy if done by the RFCs

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon