Re: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers

[Jay Ashworth <jra () baylink com>]

----- 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