MSGID: <22d701945c.DaveMeUK@BeagleBoard-xM> 653b0020   
   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 dave@davehigton.me.uk   
   REPLYTO 3:633/10 UUCP   
   In message <10j3tmk$29ec2$1@dont-email.me>   
             Pancho  wrote:   
      
   > On 12/31/25 11:36, The Natural Philosopher wrote:   
   > > On 30/12/2025 20:00, 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.   
      
   I use Ubuntu, which gives itself two routable IPv6 addresses.  One is   
   always the same (good if you have an internet-accessible server) and   
   the other is new each reboot (good for privacy).  Maybe it's the same   
   for you?   
      
   David   
      
   --- 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