dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers
jra at baylink.com
Wed Aug 3 08:55:51 CDT 2011
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swmike at 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)
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
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*.
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra at 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
More information about the NANOG