Re: dynamic or static IPv6 prefixes to residential customers

["Scott Weeks" <surfer () mauigateway com>]

--- jeroen () unfix org wrote:
From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen () unfix org>
On 2011-07-27 03:25 , Scott Weeks wrote:
> -------- matt.addison () lists evilgeni us wrote: ---------------------
> > [..] 1: http://panopticlick.eff.org/
>
> All you need to do with what that site says is write a sh script that
> deletes and then creates the same user.

And there you sprung into a trap. You will be the only one doing this
and having no history and thus you stick out very well, as the new guy
on the Internet every single day, from a similar prefix, but still
accessing a similar set of hosts etc. I think I did a talk about that at
CCC last year ;)
-------------------------------------------------

Not from the same prefix.  I have multiple networks coming into my house and I cycle through them.  next...  :-)

Is there anything you can point me to on the talk?  I'd be really interested in reading it.




-----------------------------------------------------------------
You are blocking all the facebook/google+ like and the insane amount of
advertisement (read: tracking) networks who are included on almost every
page do you? As everytime you fetch a page, even if it is not the main
site, you also hit them for an ad or a like-button (even if it is just
the image and you don't actually click you hit their server) and voila
you are tracked anyway.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I have never done facebook and I do very little google  (mainly just Earth as nothing free can compete with it afaik) 
for just these reasons.  See Urchin (http://www.google.com/urchin/features.html) and watch your browser for _utma, 
_utmb, etc cookies.  And, yes, I block every cookie (except the few I want to allow) as the various browsers I use all 
are set to "ask me every time".  The bad thing, though, is what they send 'back home'.  I am curious and have been 
looking into that recently.


scott













Giving dynamic addresses out thus only still have one valid reason:
nomadic users and the ability to aggregate prefixes inside a network.
Because when users are static, you just route a /36 to a location and
route prefixes out of that to the users and voila. When they are
nomadic/mobile you don't want all those millions of /48s polluting your
iBGP though.

For every other case, dynamic addresses just make no sense, except for
the cash cow that they are and that is the real reason that is the
default being offered, as technically they cost more money.

Greets,
 Jeroen