Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?

Thu Apr 22 11:52:31 UTC 2010

On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 07:46:50AM -0400, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 7:30 AM,  <bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com> wrote:
> >> On the other hand, I could swear I've seen a draft where the PC picks
> >> up random unused addresses in the lower 64 for each new outbound
> >> connection for anonymity purposes. Even if there is no such draft, it
> >> wouldn't exactly be hard to implement. It won't take NAT to anonymize
> >> the PCs on a LAN with IPv6.
> >
> >        the idea is covered by one or more patents held by cisco.
> 
> Won't stop the worms from using it to hide which PC they're living on.
> 
	no... but then you just block the /32 and your fine... :)
	kind of like how people now block /8s for ranges that are 
	"messy"

--bill