Doing an ifconfig on a Mac and you’ll see a lot of “temporary” IPv6 addresses. These are used for outbound connections on a temporary basis and get phased out routinely and replaced with new temporary IPv6 addresses for new outbound connections. I currently show 8 temporary IPv6 IPs. How Windows handles the temporary issues I can’t remember. The main IP for inbound connections still exists and is persistent on reboot, but how many bots are going to scan all 18 quintillion IPv6 addresses in my one /64 alone for open ports?
> On Jul 1, 2015, at 9:21 AM, Mike Hammett <[email protected]> wrote: > > I forget what it's called, but there's a component of IPv6 where a computer > *can* use a new IP address for each request to avoid tracking. Disposable > IPs, though obviously the service provider knows the range they've allocated > for legal purposes. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com <http://www.ics-il.com/> > > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > > Midwest Internet Exchange > http://www.midwest-ix.com <http://www.midwest-ix.com/> > > <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange> > <https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > From: "Paul Stewart" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 9:52:23 AM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases > > I'm not sure your argument is really valid.. NAT is "security through > obscurity" which translates to "zero additional security" also known as > "false security" > > IPv6 behind a stateful firewall is just as secure - some folks would argue > it's more secure but that argument would take several paragraphs to get into > ;) > > -----Original Message----- > From: Af [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>] On > Behalf Of Glen Waldrop > Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2015 10:01 AM > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases > > Yeah, but the great thing about NAT is that my network isn't public. > > That is my primary argument with IPv6. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Chuck McCown" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > To: <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 8:28 AM > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases > > > > > > You could use a single IPv6 to say, Mars. > > > > And everyone on Mars could have their own static IP that uses the first 64 > > to get to Mars and the second 64 to get to all the subscribers. Assuming > > routers exist that would do this. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Matt > > Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 7:22 AM > > To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] private ipv4 sale / leases > > > >> Just saying that NAT is not needed. Every single IP gives you so much > >> address space that you will never be able to use it. > >> > >> Essentially a number of globally routable set of static IPs come with > >> every IP such that one single IP could probably run the whole planet > >> right now. > > > > You mean every /64 which is minimum customer assignment in most > > respects does. A single IPv6 IP is still just a single IP. > >
