A VPN is meant to ensure the privacy of your communications through strong encryption, but new tests suggest that the most popular VPN services have critical security flaws.
Tagged With ipv6
One of the topics readers suggested I look into while at Cisco Live! this week was what was happening with the uptake of IPv6. The short answer? Not much.
Despite its benefits take up of IPv6 has been slow, and many sysadmins disable it by default. That's a bad idea, since there is no easy way to change the setting back automatically across multiple machines.
We have had occasion in the past to lament the relatively low uptake of IPv6 to date, despite a growth in the number of connected devices. Analysis by Cisco suggests that this situation will improve somewhat in Australia, but even so less than half of all internet-connected devices worldwide will be IPv6-capable by 2017.
A footnote to our earlier discussion on why IPv6 hasn't been widely adopted: the numbering of the newer version is clearly designed to suggest that it's an improved successor to IPv4. But is that name actually logical and helpful?
We've known for decades that the available pool of IPv4 address was eventually going to dry up, but despite numerous warnings usage of its successor IPv6 is still minimal. Why haven't we migrated yet? Geoff Huston, chief scientist for regional internet registry APNIC, suggests that the answer is that carriers are too cheap to make the switch and are happy to rely on network address translation (NAT) systems instead.