[ppml] Policy Proposal -- Limit Scope of Anonymous Allocations

[Leo Bicknell]

In a message written on Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 11:04:09PM -0500, Jeff S Wheeler wrote:
> If the underlying issue is transitors and spammers abusing 2003-3, then
> why not stick to that concern?

Owen's concern is that Spammers will use 2003-3 to hide their
information.  His real concern seems to be the hiding of information.

My point is that 50% of the infrastructure (in concept, and I think
roughly that in practice) already hides that information (via DHCP).
The obvious question is, won't the spammers choose the 50% that
doesn't require their information to be published to do their dirty
deeds?  If that's the case, did we gain anything by publishing
Grandma's phone number?

Alternatively, if we required this it is conceivable that providers
who are doing static allocation today and SWIP's might switch to
DHCP in an effort to give their customers privacy (a feature for
which there is clearly consumer demand).  Wouldn't that actually
make things worse, since now not only do you not have the info, but
the customer has some ability to jump around to different IP's via
DHCP?

I don't want us to write a policy that is the equivalent of this
picture:

http://linux01.org:2222/gfx/win98_with_firewall.jpg

-- 
       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
Read TMBG List - tmbg-list-request at tmbg.org, www.tmbg.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20031119/697d3efd/attachment.sig>