>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
>advertising.
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
customer.
>>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.
Why?
>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.