[yonz]

Might have learned something today, I always replace the stock router from ISPs.

Easy to test, can someone on a cable box try to reach an open port on their host on IPV6 vs IPV4. My belief is that a majority of setups (maybe not HN hackers) will able to hit a host's open port on v6 and fail on v4.

NAT is definitely an added layer though.

[Symbiote]

> Might have learned something today

Yet you continue to speculate about it and spread baseless FUD.

Consumer ISPs supporting IPv6 provide routers blocking inbound access by default. The interface to open IPv6 ports is usually labelled "IPv6 Pinholes" or similar, and you'll find hundreds of web pages on ISP websites describing the functionality -- just as they have pages on IPv4 port forwarding.

The extraordinary claim that ISPs are supplying routers with such a dangerous default configuration requires evidence.

[yonz]

> extraordinary claim that ISPs are supplying routers with such a dangerous default configuration requires evidence

Its a legitimate expectation and potentially the norm to expect that I can ssh to my desktop with IPv6 w/o configuring my router.

The pitfall comes as a side effect of NAT inadvertently making port access rare.

I am looking for data, inbound blocked ipv6 seems unlikely but I only have anecdotal evidence.

[jiggawatts]

That's not even an anecdote. You are literally just assuming something is true, then arguing vocally with people giving you evidence to the contrary.