Disabling ipv6

[Tim]

Tim:
>> If manufacturers and software programmers don't pull their fingers
>> out, we'll be faced with even more ISPs subjecting their clients to
>> NAT.

Fernando Lozano:
> Would this be so bad? Most people at work have been working using NAT 
> for years. NAT increases security. Most internet users don't need to
> run servers.

Yes it would.  NAT doesn't really increase security.  It gives the
illusion of doing so, because it usually breaks networking, but not
always (just one reason why you shouldn't pretend it's a firewall).

Users do things that act like servers, and require connections to get
through to them.  It's hard enough with firewalls, and your own NAT that
you can configure.  When it's something outside of your control, it may
become impossible.

Just a few things that become nightmarish with NAT:

  Using some FTP servers.
  Sending files through instant messenger clients.
  Voice over IP.
  Using any type of peer-to-peer software.

-- 
[tim at localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp
Linux 3.9.8-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Thu Jun 27 19:19:57 UTC 2013 x86_64

All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point
trying to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the
public lists.

George Orwell's '1984' was supposed to be a warning against tyranny, not
a set of instructions for supposedly democratic governments.