Rate of growth on IPv6 not fast enough?

Thu Apr 22 12:55:46 UTC 2010

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
 
On 4/22/2010 05:34, Simon Perreault wrote:
> On 2010-04-22 07:18, William Herrin 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.
>
> That's probably RFC 4941. It's available in pretty much all
> operating systems. I don't think there's any IPR issue to be afraid
> of.
>
> Simon
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.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
 
iEYEARECAAYFAkvQR1IACgkQ2fXFxl4S7sT0agCglqjxX9d2kYuadrreIqPo5+rN
FMAAniW1GodHwArieT/Czd96aMGQTgEF
=xYjP
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----