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