• NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 days ago

    And I would consider a detailed argument on why it is more secure to disable it to be a good reason.

    Personally? I consider an IT team who don’t know how to secure an ipv6 enabled network to not be competent. But that is a different conversation.

    • Nightwatch Admin@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yeah, I run dual stack without much trouble myself. I believe it is mainly difficult for people because eyeball diagnostics are impossible with 6.

    • TexasDrunk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 days ago

      My detailed explanation at my old job is that the dev team was full of idiots who hardcoded ipv4 addresses into their fucking code. Seriously. When we migrated from data center to cloud they had to go patch everything. The CTO wouldn’t do shit about it and the director was just there riding things out until retirement.

      • Auli@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        It does not have less eyes on and it’s 50% of Google traffic.

        • jj4211@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Think they mean local networks.

          If an IT department carefully curates IPv4 but ignores IPv6, then a rogue actor can set up a parallel IPv6 network largely without being noticed.

          IPv6 can be managed, just that it is a blindside for a lot of these departments.