Surely the account holder would be considered to be the prefix owner.
Is the legislation so tightly worded so that you have to be an IP address owner?
Jonathon.
-----Original Message-----
From: nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz [mailto:nznog-bounces(a)list.waikato.ac.nz] On Behalf Of Jim Cheetham
Sent: Tuesday, 13 September 2011 9:31 p.m.
To: NZNOG
Subject: Re: [nznog] IPv6 firewall / security experiences
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Michael Newbery
The debate is ongoing in the IETF, but the point I'm making is again that security folk make assumptions about things, like DHCP existing, which may not be true in future. For instance, choosing RA rather than DHCPv6 could be a perfectly rational decision for a company to make, which could then be a bit of a shock to security if they are expecting DHCP to always be there.
Choosing RA+random identifiers sounds like a great move for a company who doesn't wish to get involved with NZs new copyright legislation. It effectively puts you in a situation where nobody has "assigned" an IP address to you -- you got the prefix from the ISP, but made up the rest of it yourself. You don't have an IPAP, and you aren't an IPAP yourself; I'm not sure that you're an Account Holder either. Sadly this argument wasn't my idea, but I do like it :-) -jim This email and attachments: are confidential; may be protected by privilege and copyright; if received in error may not be used, copied, or kept; are not guaranteed to be virus-free; may not express the views of Kordia(R); do not designate an information system; and do not give rise to any liability for Kordia(R).