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
