MSGID:  aae623fe   
   REPLY: <10j3tmk$29ec2$1@dont-email.me> c52105ea   
   PID: PyGate 1.5.2   
   TID: PyGate/Linux 1.5.2   
   CHRS: ASCII 1   
   TZUTC: 0000   
   REPLYADDR invalid@invalid.invalid   
   REPLYTO 3:633/10 UUCP   
   Pancho  writes:   
   > The Natural Philosopher wrote:   
   >> David Higton wrote:   
   >>> What I particularly like about IPv6 is that NAT/NAPT are simply not   
   >>> necessary   
   >> So making the implementation of a firewall absolutely mandatory   
   >>    
   >   
   > Linux IPv6 does appear to use random IPv6 address for outbound   
   > connections, which have a limited lifespan. This appears to be   
   > something like 1-7 days, but if very short lifespans were used it   
   > could offer a protection similar to NAT. I need to investigate a bit   
   > further, but I don't think IPv6 needs to be inherently less safe.   
      
   NAT does not offer any protection. The reason that a typical domestic   
   NAT-equipped router protects you from inbound connections is that it has   
   a firewall as well.   
      
   (Getting a packet addressed to your internal addresses to your external   
   interface is inconvenient for many attackers, for sure, but   
   striaghtforward for your ISP or anyone who can hack or coerce them.)   
      
   --    
   https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/   
      
   --- PyGate Linux v1.5.2   
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)   
   SEEN-BY: 105/81 106/201 128/187 129/14 305 153/7715 154/110 218/700   
   SEEN-BY: 226/30 227/114 229/110 112 134 200 206 275 300 317 400 426   
   SEEN-BY: 229/428 470 616 664 700 705 266/512 291/111 292/854 320/219   
   SEEN-BY: 322/757 342/200 396/45 460/58 633/10 280 414 418 420 422   
   SEEN-BY: 633/509 2744 712/848 770/1 902/26 2320/105 5020/400 5075/35   
   PATH: 633/10 280 229/426