Hacker News Reader

Invoking NAT "security" as a reason against IPv6 is a surefire indicator the person invoking it has absolutely no idea what they're talking about and should not be allowed within typing distance of any network infrastructure

View on HN

As a reason not to IPv6? I guess. As a thing, not scare-quoted, but really security? No. Be careful with things like "absolutely no idea what they're talking about".

I don't think that the inherent security of NATs is a _good_ reason to not do IPv6.

But it _is_ a reason, and it _is_ true.

Please. _I_ invoked that argument, and I bet I know more about IPv6 than you do.

All my services and networks have IPv6. And my first operational issues with IPv6 were in 2008, when my Asterisk SIP server started failing after ~12 hours.

Culprit? Privacy addresses kept accumulating until they overflowed the SIP UDP packet size because it listed all the combinations of supported codecs/endpoints.

Oh, btw, do try to answer this message: https://www.reddit.com/r/VOIP/comments/131ex1x/ipv6_sip_trun... - it's still relevant to this day.

Having read and considered your position I see no reason to update my opinion.

You should have just disabled temporary addresses, they don't make a lot of sense on a server.

Well, I know that now. They were enabled by default, and I did not think they could _harm_ anything.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com