Re: [External] Re: IPv6 uptake

[Hunter Fuller via NANOG <nanog () nanog org>]

On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 11:16 AM William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:
> > There isn't really an advantage to using v4 NAT.
> I disagree with that one. Limiting discussion to the original security
> context (rather than the wider world of how useful IPv6 is without
> IPv4), IPv6 is typically delivered to "most people" without border
> security, while IPv4 is delivered with a stateful NAT firewall.

Maybe this is the disconnect. Who delivers v6 without a firewall?

I've done a lot of T-Mobile and Comcast business connections lately,
and those certainly both provide a firewall on v4 and v6. I'll admit
I'm not currently well-versed in other providers (except ones that
don't provide v6 at all...).

It is possible to order Comcast without a firewall for v6, in which
case you receive a public v4 address without protection too.

What common scenario leads to your average person being unprotected on
the v6 Internet?