[128843] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: end-user ipv6 deployment and concerns about privacy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marco Hogewoning)
Wed Aug 18 04:38:09 2010
From: Marco Hogewoning <marcoh@marcoh.net>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikdPuxV2KZbEhH+wq8pT_eSnxLS0fGqG6n5Y=7g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 10:37:58 +0200
To: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@mailcolloid.de>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 18 aug 2010, at 09:35, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Marco Hogewoning <marcoh@marcoh.net> =
wrote:
>>=20
>> On 18 aug 2010, at 01:12, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>>=20
>>> prefer static addressing. But in the world of facebook and co. I
>>> wonder if it would be a better to let the user have the choice. A
>>=20
>> What does facebook have to do with it ? Ever heard of cookies ?
>=20
> Facebook as an example of a company whose founder stated that privacy
> is old-fashioned. Cookies sit on another network-layer I am currently
> not talking about. They can be removed more easily, most simply by
> reinstalling your computer. The user *can* do something about cookies.
Yeah but given the amount of NAT and dynamic addresses around in v4 =
land. I think it's highly unlikely you are better of tracking v4 =
addresses instead of pushing cookies, especially as most 2.0 sites =
require a login anyway.
Groet,
MarcoH
