From: tnp@invalid.invalid   
      
   On 31/12/2025 20:18, Richard Kettlewell wrote:   
   > 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.)   
   >   
   How?   
   Genuine question.   
      
      
      
   --   
   A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on   
   its shoes.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)