Disable or enable IPV6 in router?

[Im_Ben]

I'm tinkering with my internet and read recently that they're some arguing about to disabling or enabling IPV6 can actually be a good/bad thing to do. So, what are the benefits and disadvantages to enabling it?

 

With that said, should I keep IPV6 disabled in my router or leave it on? I'm trying squeeze every bit of speed I can get out of my internet connection. So I thought I should ask since it was turned off by defualt in my settings. 

[DarkEnergy]

It's just an IP address, a few numbers to identify a system. It's not going to make anything noticeably faster.

[Kilrah]

A lot of ISPs still don't even support IPv6...

[BlackManINC]

7 hours ago, DarkEnergy said:

It's just an IP address, a few numbers to identify a system. It's not going to make anything noticeably faster.

 I'm not entirely sure about that. It seems to be faster, or more efficient based on the lower number of hops it takes to get to a destination. I'm talking only three or four hops versus 9-12 hops with IPV4. 

[Master Disaster]

2 hours ago, BlackManINC said:

 I'm not entirely sure about that. It seems to be faster, or more efficient based on the lower number of hops it takes to get to a destination. I'm talking only three or four hops versus 9-12 hops with IPV4. 

Number of hops doesn't matter, what's the latency of the route in v4 & v6? Also disabling IPv6 will cause websites that use it to stop working and since we've run out of IPv4 addresses its a problem which is going to get bigger and bigger with time.

[BlackManINC]

5 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

Number of hops doesn't matter, what's the latency of the route in v4 & v6? Also disabling IPv6 will cause websites that use it to stop working and since we've run out of IPv4 addresses its a problem which is going to get bigger and bigger with time.

Some people think IPV6 addresses the wrong issues. Why do we need IPV6 for more addresses if we are already using NAT addresses anyway? They also claim IPV6 is more more secure among other things. Not sure how true that really is though, because again, NATing sort of addresses security in itself. 

[Lurick]

7 minutes ago, BlackManINC said:

Some people think IPV6 addresses the wrong issues. Why do we need IPV6 for more addresses if we are already using NAT addresses anyway? They also claim IPV6 is more more secure among other things. Not sure how true that really is though, because again, NATing sort of addresses security in itself. 

NAT is not security though, it's not randomized and doesn't provide anything of value other than making things more difficult especially with CGNAT and other double nat situations.