Timeline for Does IPv6 remove the need for a VPN?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 9, 2017 at 13:32 | comment | added | Ron Maupin♦ | Well, I think that depends on the context. I think you are pointing out what most people consider a tunnel. Most people consider a VPN (where the "P" stands for "Private") as an encrypted tunnel. | |
| Nov 9, 2017 at 13:28 | comment | added | jonathanjo | Just to point out that not all VPNs are designed to be private in the sense of "others can't read", but private in the sense of "under your control". Some VPNs have no encryption, and use VPN just to simplify the networking. Certainly most VPNs use encryption, just remembering that some don't. | |
| Feb 6, 2017 at 10:25 | comment | added | banjaxed | So ... yes and yes? | |
| Feb 2, 2017 at 14:50 | comment | added | Ron Maupin♦ | IPv6 was designed with IPsec, which can be implemented using the AH authentication header and the ESP extension header inside the IPv6 packets. IPv4 doesn't have this, so the packets are encapsulated inside other packets (tunnel), and they can be encrypted for a VPN. That can happen that way for IPv6, too. | |
| Feb 2, 2017 at 13:08 | comment | added | banjaxed | Thanks Ron. Just to be clear, when you say "IPv6 does have ... a way to encrypt traffic", do you mean IPsec? And when you say "it is much simpler to have one way to encrypt your traffic", do you mean a VPN? | |
| Feb 1, 2017 at 17:35 | history | answered | Ron Maupin♦ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |