[ppml] Policy Proposal 2003-3: Residential Customer Privacy

[Joe Provo]

On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 01:59:53PM -0500, BARGER, DAVE (SBIS) wrote:
> I don't disgree.  But the intital focus was specific to residental 
> customer privacy.  I just wanted to clarify that point.

Psudeo-anonymity/privacy lies in the land of dynamic and NAT'd 
addressing. If there's a *need* for consumption of finite resources, 
there's a *need* for accountability. If someone needs 'permanent'/
sizable allocations, why do they need to hide? Is there a theory 
that the lack of 'privacy' (psuedo-anonymity) is preventing adoption 
of IP technology?  

I question the premise that "small home-based businesses" desire to
conceal their resource utilization is valid. The phone book analogy 
is not applicable; if the customer is getting semi-random segments 
of /32s, that is more like telephone number assignment. Many service
providers *do* offer non-contiguous multiple addresses to their end 
users (and indeed with many technologies that is as easier if not 
easier to use and implement than 'proper' subnets).  A more apt 
telco analogy for the desire of contiguous netblocks is an 
organization having an NPA/NXX - are there unlisted entries in the 
LERG?

Joe

-- 
             RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE