Moderately. I've got firewall rules as mentioned. I just like the non-routable address.
The fact that my PC's aren't public does make me feel a little better. Every service I have a port forward for has a log full of hack attempts. ----- Original Message ----- From: Josh Luthman To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 9:05 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases What's the argument? Are you suggesting that NAT is in any way secure? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Glen Waldrop <[email protected]> wrote: Yeah, but the great thing about NAT is that my network isn't public. That is my primary argument with IPv6. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chuck McCown" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:28 AM Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases You could use a single IPv6 to say, Mars. And everyone on Mars could have their own static IP that uses the first 64 to get to Mars and the second 64 to get to all the subscribers. Assuming routers exist that would do this. -----Original Message----- From: Matt Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 7:22 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases Just saying that NAT is not needed. Every single IP gives you so much address space that you will never be able to use it. Essentially a number of globally routable set of static IPs come with every IP such that one single IP could probably run the whole planet right now. You mean every /64 which is minimum customer assignment in most respects does. A single IPv6 IP is still just a single IP.
