As web users, what we say and do online is subject to pervasive surveillance. Although we typically associate online tracking with ad networks and other th
If it was IPv6 then it’d be 1:1 map to a specific domain.
I’m not sure this is (always) true.
I might rent a VPN, and that VPN may have an IPv6. But I could host a dozen services on it, behind a reverse proxy, and there would still only be one IP.
I think you misunderstand. I’m not talking about a single server hosting multiple servers. I’m talking about like your whole neighborhood could share the same ipv4 address by your ISP because of NAT. Proxies have nothing to do with NATs.
But in this case, the ISP already knows who you are within the CG-NAT because they run it. I’m confused as to how this is relevant to a comment about servers sharing an IP address.
The new protocol discussed in this post is about privacy in transit, not about protecting yourself from the server you are connecting to, so I got very confused.
I’m not sure this is (always) true.
I might rent a VPN, and that VPN may have an IPv6. But I could host a dozen services on it, behind a reverse proxy, and there would still only be one IP.
I think you misunderstand. I’m not talking about a single server hosting multiple servers. I’m talking about like your whole neighborhood could share the same ipv4 address by your ISP because of NAT. Proxies have nothing to do with NATs.
But in this case, the ISP already knows who you are within the CG-NAT because they run it. I’m confused as to how this is relevant to a comment about servers sharing an IP address.
Because the other server doesn’t…
The new protocol discussed in this post is about privacy in transit, not about protecting yourself from the server you are connecting to, so I got very confused.