Is NAT can provide some kind of protection?

Sat Jan 15 17:06:27 UTC 2011

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