On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 6:28 PM, Bob McConnell <[email protected]> wrote: > Ryan Wagoner wrote: >> >> IPv6 is not broken by design. NAT was implemented to extend the time >> until IPv4 exhaustion. A side effect was hiding the internal IPv4 >> address, which complicates a number of protocols like FTP and SIP. The >> only downside I see is ISPs could try and charge based on the number >> of IPv6 addresses being used. > > No, the downside is that each address used will be exposed to the world. > I consider that a serious security flaw. Having my ISP know how many > computers I have is a minor issue covered by the contract I have with > them. But having all of those addresses exposed to Russian mobsters, > terrorists, crackers and everyone else that knows how to capture packets > is another matter altogether. If IPv6 exposes that information to the > world, it is definitely unsafe to use.
As opposed to these "Russian mobsters, terrorists, crackers" looking at the headers of your email above... _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list [email protected] http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
