[143231] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Wed Aug 3 13:41:24 2011
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <17340112.373.1312379751660.JavaMail.root@benjamin.baylink.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2011 10:38:21 -0700
To: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Aug 3, 2011, at 6:55 AM, Jay Ashworth wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike@swm.pp.se>
>=20
>> On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>=20
>>> 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.
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> FUD indeed.
>=20
> You guys aren't *near* paranoid enough. :-)
>=20
> If the ISP=20
>=20
> a) Assigns dynamic addresses to customers, and
> b) changes those IPs on a relatively short scale (days)
>=20
> then=20
>=20
> c) outside parties *who are not the ISP or an LEO* will have a=20
> relatively harder time tying together two visits solely by the IP=20
> address.
>=20
ROFL... Yeah, right... Because the MAC suffix won't do anything.
> 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).
>=20
Which is something, what, 1% of people probably even know how to do,
let alone practice on a regular basis.
> Imperfect security !=3D no security, *as long as you know where the =
holes are*.
>=20
If people want this, they can use RFC-4193 to just about the same =
effect.
The ISP modifying the prefix regularly simply doesn't do much.
Owen
