On 01/15/2011 03:01 PM, 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. >
Now this gets a bit a offtopic, but: If you already have a Facebook account, any site you visit which has "Facebook Connect" on it usually points directly at facebook.com for downloading the 'Facebook connect' image so the Facebook-cookies have already been sent to Facebook. Why would Facebook care about your IP-address ? >> 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. >> >>
