[143227] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay Ashworth)
Wed Aug 3 09:56:55 2011
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 09:55:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1108030958120.4709@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike@swm.pp.se>
> On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > Europe is a little odd in that way, especially DE and NO in that there
> > seems to be this weird FUD running around claiming that static addresses
> > are in some way more antithetical to privacy.
>
> Yes, I agree. I know people who choose provider based on the availability
> of static addresses, I know very few who avoid static address ISPs because
> of this fact.
>
> FUD indeed.
You guys aren't *near* paranoid enough. :-)
If the ISP
a) Assigns dynamic addresses to customers, and
b) changes those IPs on a relatively short scale (days)
then
c) outside parties *who are not the ISP or an LEO* will have a
relatively harder time tying together two visits solely by the IP
address.
While this isn't "privacy", per se, that "making harder" is at least
somewhat useful to a client in reducing the odds that such non-ISP/LEO
parties will be unable to tie their visits, assuming they've controlled
the items they *can* control (cookies, flash cookies, etc).
Imperfect security != no security, *as long as you know where the holes are*.
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA http://photo.imageinc.us +1 727 647 1274
