[ipv6hackers] Dynamic prefixes & privacy (was: IPv6 prefix changing)
alex.list.gm at googlemail.com
Fri Mar 16 09:06:04 CET 2012
> Not exactly, but yes. IPv6 privacy extensions alone would be sufficient to
> make IP based tracking a lot harder and too inaccurate for the marketing
Due to the /64 bits left I don't agree, but from the discussion so far
I understand that:
- there is indeed no point in using dynamic prefixes for privacy if
they were deterministic
- random prefix assignments scary many people
But wait, aren't ULA prefixes random? If CGNs were here to stay,
why couldn't they provide a "network layer privacy"  service? If
they claim to be so good at NATPT44, NPTv6 should be a piece of cake.
 "shared address space... a reality!",
 @Tim: thanks for this term.
More information about the Ipv6hackers