Re: [bitfolk] fail2ban and IPv6

Top Page
Author: Andy Smith
Date:  
To: users
Subject: Re: [bitfolk] fail2ban and IPv6

Reply to this message
gpg: Signature made Sun Dec 16 17:43:02 2012 UTC
gpg: using DSA key 2099B64CBF15490B
gpg: Good signature from "Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net>" [unknown]
gpg: aka "Andrew James Smith <andy@strugglers.net>" [unknown]
gpg: aka "Andy Smith (UKUUG) <andy.smith@ukuug.org>" [unknown]
gpg: aka "Andy Smith (BitFolk Ltd.) <andy@bitfolk.com>" [unknown]
gpg: aka "Andy Smith (Linux User Groups UK) <andy@lug.org.uk>" [unknown]
gpg: aka "Andy Smith (Cernio Technology Cooperative) <andy.smith@cernio.com>" [unknown]
Hello,

On Sun, Dec 16, 2012 at 04:52:44PM +0000, John Winters wrote:
> Is there any mileage in configuring each NIC with two quite different
> IPv6 addresses, one to be used for outbound connections, but with
> nothing at all listening on it? Any services which need to listen
> for incoming connections then listen on the second address.


If you are this concerned about remote sites tracking your address
then you probably want to use privacy addresses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6#Privacy

Would guarantee you don't have anything listening on it because it
changes all the time.

Cheers,
Andy

--
http://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting