I like that none of my local devices are externally addressable unless an outgoing connection has been established. You can (and should) achieve the same thing with ipv6, but then it's essentially just maintaining a NAT table without the translation piece. I think that makes sense in both protocols.

[–] eager_eagle@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

exactly, I also like this peace of mind for my home network and see no benefit in using ipv6 there. Similarly for any VPC I deploy to an IaaS.

[–] unquietwiki@programming.dev 2 points 2 weeks ago

I'm actually trying a hybrid approach with some VPCs: use firewalled IPv6 ports for remote management, direct to the VMs; while siphoning off the IPv4 traffic to a basic Linux host with Netfilter rules acting as a NAT router. I keep the benefits of using IPv6, without eating up a bunch of external IPv4 addresses, that I would also have to account for on filtering.

load more comments (2 replies)