Wrong. It's more about money. People who run ISPs have said they don't support IPv6 because they won't see any return on the cost. These ISPs use CGNAT and like to solve customer "issues" by selling them a static IP. They would sell far fewer static IPs and actually have to look into issues rather than dilly dally around a bit so the static IP "fixes" the issue. They like to blame issues on other nefarious customers causing shared IPs to be banned or something like that.
In a lot of cases on a residential line you can't even pay for a public and/or static v4. The option simply doesn't exist. Many ISPs just force you to buy a "business" package for 3x the cost with a bunch of other features you may not need.
This talking point has been debunked since the 90s. Any device capable of doing NAT can perform the even easier task of filtering packets.
Even if you do decide to toss your router and connect directly to the internet it’s a lot less risky than it was in 1998 when Windows 95 didn’t have a firewall. I doubt IPv6 is going to make many people decide they want dumber gateway devices, however, since the cost differential hasn’t been meaningful for ages.
meragrin_|1 year ago
spystath|1 year ago
acdha|1 year ago
Even if you do decide to toss your router and connect directly to the internet it’s a lot less risky than it was in 1998 when Windows 95 didn’t have a firewall. I doubt IPv6 is going to make many people decide they want dumber gateway devices, however, since the cost differential hasn’t been meaningful for ages.
boredatoms|1 year ago
orangeboats|1 year ago
[deleted]