[zerognowl]

Because their crawler is so monolithic that it would be expensive and annoying overhauling it for IPV6.

There is a great use-case for IPV6 for IOT where each device gets its own IPV6 address. IPV6 addresses are appearing more like MAC addresses at this rate as IPV6 is not exhausted yet.

[drcross]

>is not exhausted yet.

The world will be a completely unrecognizable place when this is even a slight concern.

[SteveNuts]

That's what they said about IPv4!

But seriously, there's an astronomical # of addresses in IPv6. You're probably right that if we ever exhaust that space, we'll probably be communicating between planets by then.

[zokier]

There is an astronomical number of individual IPv6 addresses, but in most cases that is not really the meaningful number to look at, at least right now. IPv6 is not really supposed to be subnetted beyond /64, so that already slashes the network space quite significantly. ISPs are supposed to hand out full /48s to customers (probably does not apply to consumers though), so there goes another 16 bits. The basic unit that RIRs give to ISPs is a /32 (afaik). Which leaves far less astronomical number of individual networks left. 2^32 - 2^48 is no doubt still a pretty big number, but not really as mindbogglingly humongous as 2^128.

[baq]

> That's what they said about IPv4!

And they were right!

[tombrossman]

> There is a great use-case for IPV6 for IOT where each device gets its own IPV6 address.

Do you really want your IOT devices to be directly addressable on the internet? It's my understanding that having devices behind a router is safer. I go a step further and disable UPnP on my routers and everything still 'just works' including network printing.

[takeda]

NAT is not a security feature, it wasn't meant and it doesn't by itself add anything, except complicates communication.

You supposed to control access with firewall, and controlling security is much easier when computer/device has a routable address.

Though, IoT devices should probably be restricted of any Internet access based on their security track record (but again, this is orthogonal to being directly addressable).

[dx034]

While NAT does not provide perfect security, it is a component of security in networks where most people have no idea how to harden their systems or devices. It somehow gives me comfort to know that no one can just scan the net to find my phone, as I'm not sure if it would be vulnerable.

I still don't see a reason for the average consumer to have a static, reachable IP for their devices. I see privacy concerns but no advantages.

[growse]

Why does 'directly addressable' mean 'not behind a router'? Unless you've got a weird ISP that's delivering you Ethernet, you're going to need a router.

[tombrossman]

That's a good point and I don't know the answer.

I have a gigabit fiber (to the home) connection which terminates at a device with 4 Ethernet jacks. They all work, I've tested connecting directly to them with a laptop, but I plug a router into it and all devices connect through that router instead. It's the 'stateful firewall' aspect of using a router that I want for improved security. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateful_firewall

[belovedeagle]

My ISP delivers me Ethernet... I doubt it's that uncommon in midrise/highrise buildings. But they will only route to a single IP address (incl for 64-bit) so then again I still need a router.