MSGID: <10j5k8m$2bobe$1@dont-email.me> 036321bc
REPLY: <22d701945c.DaveMeUK@BeagleBoard-xM> 653b0020
PID: PyGate 1.5.2
TID: PyGate/Linux 1.5.2
CHRS: ASCII 1
TZUTC: 0000
REPLYADDR Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com
REPLYTO 3:633/10 UUCP
On 12/31/25 20:23, David Higton wrote:
> 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?
> 

Yes, I'm using an Ubuntu derivative. That is what I had. I had the IPv6 
address DHCPv6/RA assigned, plus there was a temporary one. Most 
external connections to the WAN went over the temporary one. I guess 
this is to not expose my permanent routable IPv6 address, the one I'm 
likely to have open ports on.

AIUI, the temporary IPv6 address is preferred for one day, but hangs 
around for 7 days.


--- 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