Hi Jeroen,
Well, my main point was how to provide anonymity without forcing
users
to use NATv6.
But....
Here's some other URLs which indicate that NAT is outlawed by
some of
this new legislation. What these laws proscribe, in general terms, is
any technology which hides the actual source of an internet session.
This pretty clearly covers NAT, Bluetooth, Proxy Servers, forwarding
services, load balancers, and probably other things I haven't thought of
yet.
Long-term I don't think this group should reply on these laws as
a
solution to NATv6, for the same reasons that banning it in the RFC may
not work.
Here's the short explanation:
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=8595
Here's the URL of the Michigan law's official analysis:
http://michiganlegislature.org/documents/2001-2002/billanalysis/house/htm/2001-HLA-6079-b.htm
It says in part:
"Telecommunications service and devices. Currently the code prohibits a
person from manufacturing, possessing, "delivering", offering to
deliver, or
advertising a counterfeit telecommunications device or a
telecommunications device, if he or she intends to use the device or to
allow the device to be
used--or knows or has reason to know that the device is intended to be
used--for either of the following illicit purposes:
· to obtain or attempt to obtain telecommunications service with the
intent to avoid or aid or abet or cause another person to avoid any
lawful charge
for the service in violation of the prohibition described above; or
· to conceal the existence or place of origin or destination of any
telecommunications service
...
When you read the surrounding definitions, this last clause
clearly
covers NAT, firewall proxies, I suspect this is unintentional; but for
now NAT is illegal in Michigan.
Jeroen Massar wrote:
>
> John Bartas wrote:
>
> > We may not have to worry about it - NAT is now illegal
> > in 4 of the United States, and counting:
> >
> > http://news.com.com/2100-1028-994667.html
>
> I don't see anything in that article that applies to NAT's.
> It's about copyrights not about IP addressing maybe that's
> why I don't see it ;)
>
> > One thing I have not seen addressed in this thread is anonymity.
> One
> > reason I wrote my first NAT in 1996 was because I can do things on the
> > net (like send this email), and no one could trace it back any further
> > than my company DSL link. It's up to me if I want to identify myself
> or
> > not.
> >
> > I don't see any good way to do this without NAT, which has well
> > understood drawbacks.
> >
> > If IPv6 has a better anonymity solution, can someone point me to
> it? Or
> > do I have to start working on NATv6? (See, this is why I don't always
> > want to identify myself! :-)
>
> Email is SMTP which runs on top of TCP/IP. You could just let
> your SMTP service not log any headers and tada you are 'anonymous'.
> This is an application 'problem' not a stack 'problem'.
> Then again if you want to be 'anonymous' then don't use the internet
> there fortunatly are enough ways to find a person who is using it.
> Then again there are also enough ways of making finding a person
> quite hard. If you want to be anonymous you probably have something
> to hide which is not normal to do or not even talking about illegal
> things.
> And one of the few reasons to use 'anonymous' SMTP is to spam, eeuw...
>
> Greets,
> Jeroen
--
-JB-
#############################################################
H
(==)o(==) H John Bartas - Main Propeller head
_I_ H InterNiche Technologies Inc. (408) 257-8014 x219
/ \ H 1340 S. DeAnza Blvd. Suite 102
----- H San Jose CA 95129
O O H [EMAIL PROTECTED]
" H www.iniche.com
\___/ H
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
