[CentOS] IPV4 is nearly depleted, are you ready for IPV6?

[Tom H]

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Bob McConnell <rmcconne at lightlink.com> wrote:
> Ryan Wagoner wrote:
>>
>> IPv6 is not broken by design. NAT was implemented to extend the time
>> until IPv4 exhaustion. A side effect was hiding the internal IPv4
>> address, which complicates a number of protocols like FTP and SIP. The
>> only downside I see is ISPs could try and charge based on the number
>> of IPv6 addresses being used.
>
> No, the downside is that each address used will be exposed to the world.
> I consider that a serious security flaw. Having my ISP know how many
> computers I have is a minor issue covered by the contract I have with
> them. But having all of those addresses exposed to Russian mobsters,
> terrorists, crackers and everyone else that knows how to capture packets
> is another matter altogether. If IPv6 exposes that information to the
> world, it is definitely unsafe to use.

As opposed to these "Russian mobsters, terrorists, crackers" looking
at the headers of your email above...