> All browsers on my machine still share the same ipv6, whereas I think they should get unique ipv6 addresses if they want them. Yup, sorry, I overlooked that

> All browsers on my machine still share the same ipv6, whereas I think they should get unique ipv6 addresses if they want them. Yup, sorry, I overlooked that part of your comment. That said, I'm still not convinced it buys you much... maybe a bit of an improvement, but... > Fingerprinting is more tractable to defeat by disabling all JS, for example. Sorry, that's just completely unreasonable. JS is basically table stakes at this point for virtually any website to reasonably function. Worse, it feels like an arms race between browsers and the ad tech giants when it comes to try and defeat fingerprinting. Now, imagine you could break the 1:1 connection between browser engine and user. For example, imagine a bank of cloud hosted browser engines out in the cloud. You have a thin "client" that uses this headless cloud browser using a remote display technique of some kind (just batch up, serialize, transport, and render DOM updates, while passing back user interaction events?). Between sessions the state is wiped, and they're randomly shared among clients of the system... I'm sure there's a zillion legal and technical hurdles, but unless you break the 1:1 relationship between browser and user, fingerprinting feels inevitable. > Also, you seem to be saying that because NAT doesn’t provide much privacy No, I'm just saying IPv6 provides no less. And either way, while it's not nothing it ain't that much.