Re: Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?

[Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>]

On Jan 15, 2011, at 6:01 AM, Joel Jaeggli wrote:

> On 1/15/11 1:24 PM, Leen Besselink wrote:
>
> > I'm a full supported for getting rid of NAT when deploying IPv6, but
> > have to say the alternative is not all that great either.
> >
> > Because what do people want, they want privacy, so they use the
> > IPv6 privacy extensions. Which are enabled by default on Windows
> > when IPv6 is used on XP, Vista and 7.
>
> There aren't enough hosts on most subnets that privacy extensions
> actually buy you that much. sort of like have a bunch of hosts behind a
> single ip, a bunch of hosts behind a single /64 aren't really insured
> much in the way of privacy, facebook is going to know that it's you.
Privacy extensions aren't intended to hide the location of the transaction.
They are intended to prevent a given MAC address from being tracked
across a variety of networks. All that they really solve is the problem
of "I disabled my cookies, but, the website still knows who I am no matter
where I go."

Owen