Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Removing IPv4 Completely from FreeBSD and Other Operating Systems

posted by takyon on Saturday January 19 2019, @01:19AM   Printer-friendly
from the ICUP dept.

canopic jug writes:

A Swiss VM hosting provider has a technical blog post about how to kill IPv4 completely on FreeBSD. That is to say, turning it completely off, not just preferring IPv6. They then solicit concrete solutions describing, along with a proof of concept, how to turn IPv4 completely off in other operating systems and allowing them to communicate with IPv6 only.

Earlier on SN:
Vint Cerf's Dream Do-Over: 2 Ways He'd Make the Internet Different (2016)
You have IPv6. Turn it on. (2016)
We've Killed IPv4! (2014)

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Removing IPv4 Completely from FreeBSD and Other Operating Systems | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 69 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2, Disagree) by VLM on Saturday January 19 2019, @02:35PM (5 children)

    by VLM (445) on Saturday January 19 2019, @02:35PM (#788632)

    A lot of ipv4 old timers seem to confuse the concept of a stateless firewall with the concept of NAT, because cheap ipv4 appliances have always marketed them as a package deal for a quarter century now.

    Believe me, a stateless ipv6 fw has not been much of a hassle for most of that quarter century.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Disagree=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Disagree' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by TheGratefulNet on Saturday January 19 2019, @03:18PM (4 children)

    by TheGratefulNet (659) on Saturday January 19 2019, @03:18PM (#788650)

    you DO mean stateful and not stateless, right?

    a firewall has to keep track of the state of the tcp connection so that it can allow incoming pkts that are 'part of' previously outgoing-init'd comms.

    yeah?

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 19 2019, @06:46PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 19 2019, @06:46PM (#788729)

      thank you. that was making me think i had fallen into some opposite world.

      • (Score: 2) by VLM on Sunday January 20 2019, @04:07PM

        by VLM (445) on Sunday January 20 2019, @04:07PM (#789060)

        thank you. that was making me think i had fallen into some opposite world.

        Yeah the blood percentage in my caffeine system was too high when I wrote that. TheGratefulNet is correct.

    • (Score: 0, Disagree) by fakefuck39 on Saturday January 19 2019, @09:24PM (1 child)

      by fakefuck39 (6620) on Saturday January 19 2019, @09:24PM (#788771)

      no, he means stateless. no one is talking about TCP here. we are talking about IP.

      • (Score: 2) by Deeo Kain on Sunday January 20 2019, @04:23PM

        by Deeo Kain (5848) on Sunday January 20 2019, @04:23PM (#789065)

        no, he means stateless. no one is talking about TCP here. we are talking about IP.

        No, he means stateful. The rules he wrote are TCP, not IP:

        ip6tables -A INPUT -i your_isp_interface -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT