MSGID: <22d701945c.DaveMeUK@BeagleBoard-xM> 653b0020
REPLY: <10j3tmk$29ec2$1@dont-email.me> c52105ea
PID: PyGate 1.5.2
TID: PyGate/Linux 1.5.2
CHRS: ASCII 1
TZUTC: 0000
REPLYADDR dave@davehigton.me.uk
REPLYTO 3:633/10 UUCP
In message <10j3tmk$29ec2$1@dont-email.me>
          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.

I use Ubuntu, which gives itself two routable IPv6 addresses.  One is
always the same (good if you have an internet-accessible server) and
the other is new each reboot (good for privacy).  Maybe it's the same
for you?

David

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.2
 * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
SEEN-BY: 105/81 106/201 128/187 129/14 305 153/7715 154/110 218/700
SEEN-BY: 226/30 227/114 229/110 112 134 200 206 275 300 317 400 426
SEEN-BY: 229/428 470 616 664 700 705 266/512 291/111 292/854 320/219
SEEN-BY: 322/757 342/200 396/45 460/58 633/10 280 414 418 420 422
SEEN-BY: 633/509 2744 712/848 770/1 902/26 2320/105 5020/400 5075/35
PATH: 633/10 280 229/426