tl;dr - Windows 10 creates temporary IPv6 addresses, but browsers and other apps don't consistently use them. They use permanent IPv6 addresses, which are supposedly link-local. So if you have an IPv6 uplink, you'd better disable IPv6, if you value your privacy. https://social.technet.microsoft.co...emporary-addresses?forum=win10itpronetworking
I do it ever since IPv6 was introduced. IPv6 = Ethernet card = a tracked purchase = a tracked owner. Code: netsh int ipv6 isatap set state disabled netsh int teredo set state disabled netsh interface ipv6 6to4 set state state=disabled undoonstop=disabled reg add "HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip6\Parameters" /v "DisabledComponents" /t REG_DWORD /d "255" /f
It's not much of a problem now, I think. I mean, many people don't even have IPv6 connectivity. But there are some websites that aren't accessible unless you have it. And over time, that will become a bigger problem.
Unless you are using some IPv6 only service, there should not be any problems. Maybe in like 10 years, it will be an issue, but thus far, IPv4 only is just fine. I have got IPv6 router, bit it is firmly disabled, http://test-ipv6.com/
Thnx @TairikuOkami and @mirimir . So far I encountered only one VPN client that wouldn't work if IPv6 was disabled system wide but didn't stumble upon webpage that would give me a problem.
I feel quite sure the primary purpose of ipv6 is to identify individual computers and the supposed shortage of ipv4 addresses was just an excuse for that. The claimed 255.255.255.255 limitation is bogus for more than one reason, firstly because that format is legacy to the days of 8 bit computing. 255 being the biggest 8 bit integer. If they just upgraded it to 16 bit the format would be 65535.65535.65535.65535 which would be plenty enough IP addresses. Or even if they wanted to keep the 8 bit format for ease of use all they needed to do to increase the available number of addresses is add another octet. 255.255.255.255.255
The big reason why IPv6 protocol is different than IPv4, is that in IPv4 world there is heavy usage of NAT. And NAT is bad from network administrator perspective (troubleshooting) and decentralization of Internet perspective. NAT centralizes Internet which is bad. Peer-to-peer is better. If somebody really wants anonymity, she/he would need to hide their IPv[4,6] address from apps anyway.
Not good enough You need to hide IPs from peers. Which requires NAT. I mean, VPN services are basically NAT routers on a stick
I meant VPN, Tor or other anonymization technology as part of hiding IPv[4,6] address from apps. The thing is: 1. In the Internet where NAT is generally used by ISP, you don't have generally available peer-to-peer technologies. 2. In the Internet where NAT is not used generally, you can always set up NAT by yourself. You don't miss anything in second option. You still can have NAT if you want in second option, but in first option NAT cripples down Internet technologies by favoring centralized solutions.
@mirimir , @reasonablePrivacy - I'd say the biggest issue today is the difficulty in finding a 3rd party jurisdiction that actually honors the rule of law, due process, human rights, and individual warrants. So you can fix up your own server or use other services with the reasonable expectation of a decent legal and constitutional process which respects human rights and whose IC isn't owned by the X-eyes. Can't think of one right now.
