4 ms·
The whole removal of nat and directly connecting to the destination with the source address seems like a privacy and security nightmare.. imo.. The security ex
by collsni 4y ago
The whole removal of nat and directly connecting to the destination with the source address seems like a privacy and security nightmare.. imo..
The security extension thing seems a bit wack. I'd still like all my traffic to originate from a single source and be tagged with that address only. This possible?
- bejelentkezni 4y agoYou can use NAT6 if you insist but there's no reason to. The aforementioned privacy extensions keep you from being tracked long-term based on address alone and your firewall is still blocking incoming traffic.
- jhugo 4y agoNothing stops you using site- or link-local addresses and NATing to a single (or several) public IPv6 addresses, just as you do with IPv4. There was no "removal of NAT", it's just not necessary any more. A proper firewall without NAT is generally fine, especially in combination with privacy extensions (which likely overall give better privacy than IPv4+NAT), but if you want to completely conceal the network layout behind your router, go nuts with NAT, no problem.