Return to Ad-Hoc Forum Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: Donner
Date/Time: Wed, August 16, 2000 at 9:15 AM GMT
Browser: Netscape Navigator V using XWindows/Linux 2.2.16 (Pentium)
Score: 5
Subject: Re: IP solution for Dial-Up Users


>I'm not sure what you mean by "call out" from the ISP.

If you are running a server at home (like I do for years) you need
a leased line (I build one for myself without using a telco) or dial-
out solutions.

>>I see no reason for such a identification request.
>Anonymity is one of the keystones (and banes) of the Web.

Definitly ... one of my working subjects.

>>Why do you assume, static IPs or names ease the life of a spammer?

>Because a static name is a better target.  Would your rather have a
>list of email addresses that loses value over time as people move
>around, or a single, static address that is unlikely to change even
>if the person changes ISPs?  A static target has more value than a
>transient one -- not only is your email likely to remain the same,
>but your habits would be much easier to follow and target

There are several possibilities to hide the personal profile. Unless
most customers load there pictures from doubleclick, they are
perfektly supervised.

A static IP address is sensefull in many cases. It is required to
participate on the internet. Otherwise the user is degraded to a

>>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 guys ...)

>The current solution is a hack.


>Other than that, I think you are
>pretty much correct.  Let's say I have fifty users behind an ipmasq
>server.  All of these users "unique identifiers" are tracked to the
>same IP. Great for anonymity (sort of) but not so good for uniquely
>identifying each person -- which was what he was trying to do.  Worse
>yet, one of those users dials out on their modem to another ISP --
>and now the user's unique ID exists in two places. Ouch.

Identifying users by IP addresses is plain dumb. It will not work.
Please read about the session concept in PHPLib (Netuse).

>>Please read IPv6. It offers several solutions.

>I *have* read IPv6.  Tacking a user's MAC address on at the beginning
>of a modified IPv4 address, changing everything to hex, and calling
>it unique is... well... not what I would have chosen. :)

You descibe link local addresses. They are unique on the local
network. Nothing more. They can not be reached from outside, so
NAT or PAT is necessary.

>I don't think that IPv6 is the solution to our problems.  I don't
>think that having every device in the world on the Internet is the
>solution to our problems.

I do understand IPv6 in a different manner. But I can be wrong.

>Introducing complexity is always a dangerous thing. Doing it in such
>a way that almost guarantees problems (both technical and political)
>is just dumb.  Make no mistake -- IPv6 is very complex.  Manual
>configuration is discouraged.

;-) I find IPv6 is easy to understand especially if routing issues occur.

>You think tracking someone is hard now on the Internet?  Wait till I
>write a program that drops my interface, changes my MAC address, then
>plugs back in and gets a new address -- every, say, 10 minutes.

Differnent link local addresses cause what?

>Less load on routers, and more control over what goes where.

Less load? Where did you read that? IPv6 Routers has to manage a lot
of site-local and link-local addresses and considerably more multi-
and anycasts. For WAN routing you might be right.

>My argument is that we really need to take a good long look at what
>we're doing here.

That's my main reasons to candidate.

>You said it yourself; there is no need for Identification by address
>on the Internet

No. I said, that there was no reason for identification.


Message Thread:

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy