The argument for IPv6 that there could be a unique address for 200 devices for every person living on the planet was much more compelling when network security was a more simple space.
I mean that, when IPv6 started filtering out to non-specialists, network security wasn’t nearly as complex, and nor was the frequency of escalation what it is today. Back when IPv6 was new(ish), there weren’t widespread botnets exploiting newly discovered vulnerabilities every week. The idea of maintaining a personal network of internet-accessible devices was reasonable. Now maintaining the security of a dozen different devices with different OSes is a full time job.
Firewalling off subnets and limitting the access to apps through a secured gateway of reverse proxies is bot bad networking. That’s all a NAT is, and reducing your attack surface is good strategy.
The argument for IPv6 that there could be a unique address for 200 devices for every person living on the planet was much more compelling when network security was a more simple space.
Nothing has changed about why that is compelling: NAT sucks and creates nothing but problems.
Network security is almost the same with IPv6.
If you rely on NAT as a security measure you are just very bad at networking.
I mean that, when IPv6 started filtering out to non-specialists, network security wasn’t nearly as complex, and nor was the frequency of escalation what it is today. Back when IPv6 was new(ish), there weren’t widespread botnets exploiting newly discovered vulnerabilities every week. The idea of maintaining a personal network of internet-accessible devices was reasonable. Now maintaining the security of a dozen different devices with different OSes is a full time job.
Firewalling off subnets and limitting the access to apps through a secured gateway of reverse proxies is bot bad networking. That’s all a NAT is, and reducing your attack surface is good strategy.