Hacker News Reader

Comment by xorcist | Hacker News Reader

Check out RFC 4941, "Privacy Extensions". It's probably already implemented on the computer you're using right now.

You can still track the prefix though. In a standard /64 deployment only the suffix will change so there is still some information leaking if you have a static prefix (obviously, as in static IPv4). However, my ISP defaults to dynamic /64 prefix unless you opt in for static prefix. I believe most ISPs should probably do the same.

If you have a dynamic prefix then you can't (easily) run servers; you'd need some sort of dynamic DNS as well. And if you have dynamic DNS and dynamic reverse-resolution…there goes anonymity anyway.

IP isn't anonymous; it wasn't designed to be, and probably (given the problems it's trying to solve) shouldn't be. Anonymity should be an overlay.

If you run a server you pretty much need to expose your IP one way or another anyway, even in IPv4. Well, I suppose you can use something like dynamic dns but still...

I totally agree, though, anonymity is not part of IP. I was not implying that, just that there are still ways for home users to somehow shuffle their IPs within the IPv6 framework.

If I need to run a server, I anonymously lease hosted VPS or whatever, and SSH via Tor. My concern is keeping my personal Internet connectivity anonymous. I use nested VPN chains, generally using pfSense VMs as VPN clients, and Tor.

I get that the Tor Project is working on IPv6. But I also want IPv6 NAT, in pfSense or whatever. That's to keep my local device IPv6 addresses (hosts and VMs) private, even from Tor entry guards. I guess that it's time to learn how to ensure that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com