From: invalid@invalid.invalid   
      
   Pancho  writes:   
   > The Natural Philosopher wrote:   
   >> David Higton wrote:   
   >>> What I particularly like about IPv6 is that NAT/NAPT are simply not   
   >>> necessary   
   >> So making the implementation of a firewall absolutely mandatory   
   >>   
   >   
   > Linux IPv6 does appear to use random IPv6 address for outbound   
   > connections, which have a limited lifespan. This appears to be   
   > something like 1-7 days, but if very short lifespans were used it   
   > could offer a protection similar to NAT. I need to investigate a bit   
   > further, but I don't think IPv6 needs to be inherently less safe.   
      
   NAT does not offer any protection. The reason that a typical domestic   
   NAT-equipped router protects you from inbound connections is that it has   
   a firewall as well.   
      
   (Getting a packet addressed to your internal addresses to your external   
   interface is inconvenient for many attackers, for sure, but   
   striaghtforward for your ISP or anyone who can hack or coerce them.)   
      
   --   
   https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)