>If I understand correctly, this idea is similar to dynamic DNS, with
addition of uniquely identifying the user or computer that dials
I understand him, too.
>There are many problems that this would create, without
>anything that I can see. Why does a dial-up user need to to have
>static address? They already have an email address that is
static. If they want people to be able to access their
>machine (over a
analog line?) they can utilize a dynamic DNS service
>which updates their domain
name to their IP when they log on.
NFS, let connections stay while offline, running
All but the last requires static IP addresses. And this are legitime
Dynamic DNS does solve the server problem partially.
It's still not possible to
call out from the ISP without having
a static IP address for each server.
think that uniquely identifying a dial-up user would merely provide
>a much easier
way for people to be tracked and identified on-line.
I see no reason for such a
>Communication solutions already exist -- there is no need
to make the
>spammer's job easier.
Why do you assume, static IPs or names ease
the life of a spammer?
>And what about people who have multiple
in at the same time, or multiple computers behind a
>dial-up line on an ipmasq
server? How would they be identified? How
>would you handle multi-link ppp
users with two, three, or five lines
The current solution works
fine. It will work fine even in the case
of static IPs and names. There is no
need for Identification by
address in the Internet. (Of course, there are marketing
>The overhead would be incredible, to maintain a dynamic system for
millions of dial-up users. And remember that computer networks
>do not like
things being addressed exactly the same -- tends to cause
>all kinds of neat (and
ulcer-inducing) things to happen.
Please read IPv6. It offers several solutions.
Just another German candidate