On Jan 15, 2011, at 9:19 AM, Leen Besselink wrote: > On 01/15/2011 03:01 PM, Joel Jaeggli wrote: >> On 1/15/11 1:24 PM, Leen Besselink wrote: >> >>> I'm a full supported for getting rid of NAT when deploying IPv6, but >>> have to say the alternative is not all that great either. >>> >>> Because what do people want, they want privacy, so they use the >>> IPv6 privacy extensions. Which are enabled by default on Windows >>> when IPv6 is used on XP, Vista and 7. >> There aren't enough hosts on most subnets that privacy extensions >> actually buy you that much. sort of like have a bunch of hosts behind a >> single ip, a bunch of hosts behind a single /64 aren't really insured >> much in the way of privacy, facebook is going to know that it's you. >> > > Now this gets a bit a offtopic, but: > > If you already have a Facebook account, any site you visit which has > "Facebook Connect" on it usually points directly at facebook.com for > downloading the 'Facebook connect' image so the Facebook-cookies have > already been sent to Facebook.
That assumes that you use the same browser for Facebook as for other uses. I recommend not doing that, but to dedicate a browser for Facebook only, precisely because Facebook plays these sorts of games and is such a security hole. Regards Marshall > > Why would Facebook care about your IP-address ? > >>> And now you have no idea who had that IPv6-address at some point >>> in time. The solution to that problem is ? I guess the only solution is to >>> have the IPv6 equivalant of arpwatch to log the MAC-addresses/IPv6- >>> address combinations ? >>> >>> Or is their an other solution I'm missing. >>> >>> > > >