| | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
You're here: Home |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] wrote: <SNIP> > > > > > The single biggest real problem with Ipv6 is the privacy exposure > > > to the user. When this problem is fixed or solved, Ipv6 will be > > > much more widely excepted. > > > > Could you elaborate on why IPv6 is exposes more of my privacy > > than IPv4 currently does? > > Yes. IPv6 in autoinstall does not allow for masking where IPv4 > does, simply put. Ehmm.. do I read it correctly if I interprete this that you actually want to have NAT (masking?) ???? If you don't require end-to-end communications or want to "secure" privacy of your users then setup a HTTP proxy at the border of your network, give that IPv6 and IPv4 capability and let your privacy concerned users use that. Config the proxy to not show forwarded-for and you are done. Next to that add a SOCKS proxy for most other applications. This solution works for both IPv4 and IPv6. NAT's are out of the question any way one will put it. Then again if there is no need for end-to-end, why would one even think about increasing addresssize (IPv4->IPv6) at all ? I might understand you completely wrongly though :) Greets, Jeroen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: Unfix PGP for Outlook Alpha 13 Int. Comment: Jeroen Massar / jeroen@unfix.org / http://unfix.org/~jeroen/ iQA/AwUBP10TuCmqKFIzPnwjEQJDsgCgl4LFYa2OfZuJz3PJQzwz1qSgC/8AnRUV rhk8GSjRSbTgK8EgTRFU9UOi =TsbX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
