On 06/07/2017 03:37 PM, Unman wrote: > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 09:39:30AM -0300, Franz wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 8:53 AM, pixel fairy <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tuesday, June 6, 2017 at 11:27:17 PM UTC-7, Alex wrote: >>> >>>> If anybody could find/link/remember the reasons why IPv6 was >>>> explicitly discarded in a first moment I'd like to re-read >>>> that... >>> > [...] > On reasons why IPv6 isnt yet implemented, there are various remarks. > Back in February Marek said: <quote> We're not considering having > directly-addressable IPv6 VMs by default (maybe an optional feature, > but not sure if even that). When we'll implement IPv6 support, it > will also use NAT. There are many reasons for that: - not expose VMs > to external traffic by default (even in case of some firewall error, > not allow directly address particular selected VM) - not leak (or at > least make it harder to guess) information about source VM / number > of them (or even the fact of using multiple VMs) - not reconfigure > every VM when user switch to a different network, including plugging > in VPN services etc - the above is especially important in case of > some privacy use cases, to not leak "real" address to the VM > </quote> That was the quote I was looking for, thanks Unman.
-- Alex -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "qubes-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/qubes-users/c1706d4a-1e2d-49c4-dc6c-a7a8214483dc%40gmx.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
