nanog mailing list archives
Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?
From: "Scott Weeks" <surfer () mauigateway com>
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 10:23:42 -0700
--- jimb () jsbc cc wrote: From: Jim Burwell <jimb () jsbc cc> I think this is different. They're talking about using a new IPv6 for each connection. RFC4941 just changes it over time IIRC. IMHO that's still pretty good privacy, at least on par with a NATed IPv4 from the outside perspective, especially if you rotated through temporary IPv6s fairly frequently. Of course, for browsers, as someone else mentioned, it's somewhat moot because of cookies. -------------------------------------------- Manage your cookies. preferences => privacy & security => cookies => select "ask for each cookie" Noisy in the beginning and then settles down after a while. Surprising, though, in what is tracked, so it's worth doing for a while just to observe. Oh, yeah, also manage your Flash cookies: http://macromedia.com/support/documentation/en/flashplayer/help/settings_manager07.html scott
Current thread:
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?, (continued)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Charles Mills (Apr 22)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Larry Sheldon (Apr 22)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mark Smith (Apr 23)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Larry Sheldon (Apr 22)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Marshall Eubanks (Apr 22)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Joel Jaeggli (Apr 24)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Larry Sheldon (Apr 24)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mohacsi Janos (Apr 22)
- Re: Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough? Mark Smith (Apr 23)