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. > >
