Thanks for the guide! I can understand and relate to both sentiments; years ago I'd have been thrilled to have a "personal" IP so I could just send print jobs to my home printer instead of emailing attachments, with the convenience of not needing dynamic DNS even.
But today the sole reliance on properly configured and working firewall rules seems to not suffice to counter the ever-increasing threat the internet poses. So now that I have it, I don't want it anymore.
And AFAICS, the one singular purpose of a firewall is to break connectivity, it's the whole idea behind it. So it makes sense to have an additional layer of "connectivity breakage by default", unless you truly need to provide services that cannot be put in a DMZ, for which you'd be willing to lower the "breakage level". It's all a matter of use case, and the real boon of IPv6 to me is not to be forced to use one or the other, even if the use case doesn't lend itself well to it, anymore.
Plus I don't feel like reconfiguring all my devices whenever I change ISPs or when/if they decide to send me a different prefix. So I looked for guides such as this, and before finding yours I found this one:
https://blog.apnic.net/2018/02/02/nat66-good-bad-ugly/
I totally love how he clearly expresses his resentment of NAT, in a refreshingly humorous way, only to grudgingly set it up himself because it provides a solution to his problem. :)
Right, the actual thing I'd set out to ask is if using the officially assigned "private" range (ULAs, fc00::/7), which makes the system prefer IPv4 over IPv6, would be an impediment if I relegate IPv4 to local hosts only, anyway, with using IPv6 for WAN exclusively?
Edit: seems like it is ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula-05 ) in cases of v6-only hosts (do those even exist yet?) or if I deny outbound IPv4. I'd still rather use the ULAs over other ranges in the hope they'll be declared "unroutable" and therefore unable to leak into the internet because the first ISP router would block them.
But today the sole reliance on properly configured and working firewall rules seems to not suffice to counter the ever-increasing threat the internet poses. So now that I have it, I don't want it anymore.
And AFAICS, the one singular purpose of a firewall is to break connectivity, it's the whole idea behind it. So it makes sense to have an additional layer of "connectivity breakage by default", unless you truly need to provide services that cannot be put in a DMZ, for which you'd be willing to lower the "breakage level". It's all a matter of use case, and the real boon of IPv6 to me is not to be forced to use one or the other, even if the use case doesn't lend itself well to it, anymore.
Plus I don't feel like reconfiguring all my devices whenever I change ISPs or when/if they decide to send me a different prefix. So I looked for guides such as this, and before finding yours I found this one:
https://blog.apnic.net/2018/02/02/nat66-good-bad-ugly/
I totally love how he clearly expresses his resentment of NAT, in a refreshingly humorous way, only to grudgingly set it up himself because it provides a solution to his problem. :)
Right, the actual thing I'd set out to ask is if using the officially assigned "private" range (ULAs, fc00::/7), which makes the system prefer IPv4 over IPv6, would be an impediment if I relegate IPv4 to local hosts only, anyway, with using IPv6 for WAN exclusively?
Edit: seems like it is ( https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-buraglio-v6ops-ula-05 ) in cases of v6-only hosts (do those even exist yet?) or if I deny outbound IPv4. I'd still rather use the ULAs over other ranges in the hope they'll be declared "unroutable" and therefore unable to leak into the internet because the first ISP router would block them.
"