Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?

Sat Jan 15 14:01:23 UTC 2011

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.

> And now you have no idea who had that IPv6-address at some point
> in time. The solution to that problem is ? I guess the only solution is to
> have the IPv6 equivalant of arpwatch to log the MAC-addresses/IPv6-
> address combinations ?
> 
> Or is their an other solution I'm missing.
> 
> 