MSGID: <10j45ob$2t1h9$5@dont-email.me> b71f6eaa   
   REPLY: <10j3tmk$29ec2$1@dont-email.me> c52105ea   
   PID: PyGate 1.5.2   
   TID: PyGate/Linux 1.5.2   
   CHRS: UTF-8 4   
   TZUTC: 0000   
   REPLYADDR tnp@invalid.invalid   
   REPLYTO 3:633/10 UUCP   
   On 31/12/2025 19:31, 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.   
      
   No, its more that it imposes a different discipline, And that has to be    
   learnt, taught and implemented.   
      
   And that takes time, costs money and always has gotchas.   
      
   Which is why most people (consumers and even businesses) are still    
   running V4 + NAT....   
      
      
   --    
     ?A leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader,    
   who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say,    
   ?We did this ourselves.?   
      
   ? Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching   
      
      
   --- 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