IPv6 reporting??

Should MyBB do REGULAR reports on IPv6 roll outs in South Africa?

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 88.0%

  • Only idiots do IPv6

    Votes: 1 4.0%

  • I'm happy to pay dearly for IPv4 connectivity and CGNAT issues

    Votes: 2 8.0%
  • Total voters
    25
  • Poll closed .
M

Meester

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2007
Messages
174
Reaction score
35
When do MyBB do a report on the IPv6 status of South Africa?

Like naming and shaming the MNOs, the FNOs, The Bank's internet apps, hosting providers and ISPs that doesn't provide IPv6 options and doesn't advertise IPv6 for their clients?
 
Meester said:
When do MyBB do a report on the IPv6 status of South Africa?

Like naming and shaming the MNOs, the FNOs, The Bank's internet apps, hosting providers and ISPs that doesn't provide IPv6 options and doesn't advertise IPv6 for their clients?
Click to expand...

As far as I know not a single mobile network provider implements IPv6 yet in South Africa. Seems mainly limited to fibre providers, and it's pretty broken when they do.
 
deweyzeph said:
As far as I know not a single mobile network provider implements IPv6 yet in South Africa. Seems mainly limited to fibre providers, and it's pretty broken when they do.
Click to expand...
EXACTLY the problem :D
(Apparently billing reasons.....)
 
Meester said:
EXACTLY the problem :D
(Apparently billing reasons.....)
Click to expand...

The biggest problem with the way fibre providers implement IPv6 is that for some bizarre reason they all still issue dynamic prefixes that change every 24 hours, which, considering the IPv6 address space is so huge, is a bizarre way to implement IPv6.
 
Meester said:
EXACTLY the problem :D
(Apparently billing reasons.....)
Click to expand...
Listen if you have the all solving pill to implement please do post it here then the brains to the operation will read through it and see where what how. ATM there have been some security concerns for IPv6 so yea
 
deweyzeph said:
The biggest problem with the way fibre providers implement IPv6 is that for some bizarre reason they all still issue dynamic prefixes that change every 24 hours, which, considering the IPv6 address space is so huge, is a bizarre way to implement IPv6.
Click to expand...

You'll be surprised how many does NOT (The ISPs on the FNOs :D )
Yes it *was* an ADSL thingy that Telkom(back then) implemented/forced, but long gone not the thing anymore

HartsockZA said:
Listen if you have the all solving pill to implement please do post it here then the brains to the operation will read through it and see where what how. ATM there have been some security concerns for IPv6 so yea
Click to expand...

what security Issues? IPv4 NAT is NOT security, you'll be surprised how bad that is for security too.

Otherwise, what problems do you think there is for IPv6? other than the lack of implementation from the MNOs & FNOs and Banks
 
Ultimately very few people care about IPv6 (at the moment) and it's not only locally, I used to work in hosting and we offered a standard IPv4 address for all our VPS servers with an entire free IPv6 subnet on request and maybe one in 50 clients even enquired about IPv6, with maybe 1 in 100 actually requesting we add IPv6 subnets for their servers (not local hosting so international clients with servers in US and EU)
 
HartsockZA said:
Listen if you have the all solving pill to implement please do post it here then the brains to the operation will read through it and see where what how. ATM there have been some security concerns for IPv6 so yea
Click to expand...

Mobile operators have been blocking incoming ports on IPv4 for ages already back in the days before they used CG-NAT and every mobile device got its own public IPv4 address, should be easy enough to do the same for IPv6. Ultimately that seems to be the main security issues around IPv6.
 
MattyW said:
Ultimately very few people care about IPv6 (at the moment)
Click to expand...
yeah, they don't yet have to pay dearly for it... and they don't care about the issues cgnat causes them
And the VPS/Hosting providers don't (yet require) them to pay for the IPv4 ....
 
Good luck getting MyBB to report on it. Not even their website or this forum is on ipv6 last time I looked. On google stats +-50% of internet traffic is ipv6. South Africa sits at 2.5%. Pathetic really. Many african countries are beating us. MTN, Vodacom, Telkom all 0%
 
  • Like
Reactions: rdm
EmmanuelGoldstein said:
Your IPV6 no privacy whatsoever club
Click to expand...
You now spewing 💩 from your keyboard.

IPv4 (even WITH CGNAT) does NOT give privacy.... any more than IPV6... actually I've had more issues with websites where CGNAT was the cause of blocking my 'cause somebody else from the same ISP made frequent login failures....

But then, you aren't deploying multiple servers in multiple VLANs and having routing problems 'cause of not enough IPs and then you need to NAT, and oh... we need a reverse proxy now to get to all the webUIs as we don't have enough public IPs and and and... but yeah, it's fine to run that behind CGNAT
 
Don't really care about IPV6.... long ago they said IPv4 will run out of IP addresses, but perhaps Port Forwarding / NAT saved the IPv4 and it might still be around for quite a while.

From what I know Before NAT each device connected to the internet had basically a "public" IP address then, which meant IPv4 was running out fast, fastforward a couple years, most devices now are likely to be behind a router/gateway, which freed up all the device public IP addresses and basically only the router / gateways are actually having the real public IP, so ja might be a while still before we see IPv6 in full action :P
 
EmmanuelGoldstein said:
Your IPV6 no privacy whatsoever club
Click to expand...
A major misconception that security by obscurity (NAT) is safe - it's not. Just like v4, any basic firewall on any router implements simple rules for v6 traffic forwarding, namely tracking for established and related connections and dropping unknown connections - meaning inbound connections are blocked unless first established from a device behind NAT/forwarding. This means that for both NATted v4 and IPv6, any router's basic firewall does track and limit inbound connections (unless you're the kind to disable firewalls). Port knocking/scans should not work for a device behind a basically configured router - v4/v6, if it does, then throw the router away. These basic standards have existed for as long as IPv6 has been around.

Hackers know this and the majority of attacks these days originate from inside the LAN out (making the IP protocol irrelevant). A malicious app/link establishes an outbound connection that opens up access to your device from the inside, basically punching through any firewall. If you're super concerned about security, you need a firewall capable of running deep packet inspection and threat protection, actively monitoring where you're connecting to, and what your packet payloads could contain (remember we're not breaking encryption on the fly yet).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X