4 ms·
The benefits go beyond just curtailing address exhaustion. No NAT necessary. No need for DHCP to assign IP addresses in a LAN. IP scanning becoming infeasible d
by 10000truths 5y ago
The benefits go beyond just curtailing address exhaustion. No NAT necessary. No need for DHCP to assign IP addresses in a LAN. IP scanning becoming infeasible due to 64-bit subnets. No more ARP spoofing with NDP+SEND. Etc etc.
- x3n0ph3n3 5y agoMy concern with no NAT and every device on my network having a unique, publicly visible IP address it that sites can distinguish between individual devices coming from my network... I like the ability to hide what's on my network behind my router.
- snuxoll 5y agoThat’s what privacy addresses are for.
- speedgoose 5y agoAren’t privacy addresses just random and temporary for like a day ? Sure it’s better to use the MAC address of the device forever.
- jlokier 5y agoPrivacy addresses don't hide what's on your network as much as NAT does, which is what the GP wants. For example with privacy addreses, monitors outside the network can easily see you have 5 devices on at the same time, 4 of which connect to port 443, 3 of which connects to updates.microsoft.com or whatever (just an example). With NAT, monitors outside the network can see the connections, but cannot see (from IP/port information alone) that there are 5 distinct devices and what they individually connect to.
- elcritch 5y agoAlso browser fingerprinting already destroys that anonymity for the majority of end user interactions with internet sites.
- bombcar 5y agoThese are benefits of an ipv6 only world - dual stack doesn’t save you much on these (though it may perhaps if you do pure ipv6 internal and nat to ipv4 at the boundary).