On 03/08/2011, at 11:25 PM, Jay Ashworth wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Mikael Abrahamsson" <swm...@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). > >
We've gone with static /56 v6 ranges for customers. Why? Customers told us they wanted address stability. Pretty much more than anything else. Admittedly the people who opt'ed into the trial part are not typical customers, but it's something they were all fairly adamant about. We're small globally, but we're the 5th largest broadband provider in Australia and we've actually gone and delivered IPv6 natively to our broadband customer base (as well as corporate and other clients). We also sell only v6 capable ADSL CPE (ie. have actual firmware that works with dual stack broadband. MMC
