From: tnp@invalid.invalid   
      
   On 31/12/2025 19:31, Pancho wrote:   
   > On 12/31/25 11:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:   
   >> On 30/12/2025 20:00, 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.   
      
   No, its more that it imposes a different discipline, And that has to be   
   learnt, taught and implemented.   
      
   And that takes time, costs money and always has gotchas.   
      
   Which is why most people (consumers and even businesses) are still   
   running V4 + NAT....   
      
      
   --   
     “A leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader,   
   who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say,   
   “We did this ourselves.”   
      
   ― Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)