▲ 860 ▼ We don't talk about IPv5 (lemmy.world) submitted 1 year ago by qaz@lemmy.world to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev 174 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] StopSpazzing@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) Its unlikely someone with guess your ipv6 of your iot. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (3 children) No, but it’s far easier to explain how to configure your home network such that 182.168.1.* is for your regular devices like laptops, etc. and 192.168.2.* is for your IoT devices. Then block all access from 192.168.2.* to the internet so your IoT devices can’t “phone home”, can’t auto-update without your knowledge, can’t end up as part of a botnet, etc. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] StopSpazzing@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children) That's the thing, you are still thinking in ipv4 terms, and that's ok. It's a different way to think of things using ipv6 and the proper way to configure them. No worries tho. Not like you are being forced to ipv6 for internal home networks. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (1 child) Ok, so what would the equivalent be? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] bubblewrap@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago Create a new /64 and don't give it a route to the internet. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (3 children) No, but it’s far easier to explain how to configure your home network such that 182.168.1.* is for your regular devices like laptops, etc. and 192.168.2.* is for your IoT devices. Then block all access from 192.168.2.* to the internet so your IoT devices can’t “phone home”, can’t auto-update without your knowledge, can’t end up as part of a botnet, etc. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] StopSpazzing@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children) That's the thing, you are still thinking in ipv4 terms, and that's ok. It's a different way to think of things using ipv6 and the proper way to configure them. No worries tho. Not like you are being forced to ipv6 for internal home networks. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (1 child) Ok, so what would the equivalent be? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] bubblewrap@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago Create a new /64 and don't give it a route to the internet. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] StopSpazzing@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (2 children) That's the thing, you are still thinking in ipv4 terms, and that's ok. It's a different way to think of things using ipv6 and the proper way to configure them. No worries tho. Not like you are being forced to ipv6 for internal home networks. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (1 child) Ok, so what would the equivalent be? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] bubblewrap@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago Create a new /64 and don't give it a route to the internet. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago (1 child) Ok, so what would the equivalent be? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] bubblewrap@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago Create a new /64 and don't give it a route to the internet. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] bubblewrap@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago Create a new /64 and don't give it a route to the internet. permalink fedilink source parent