I agree with you on those two cases. The privacy issues I raised are about third party requests for information.
-- Rich ----- Original Message ----- From: [email protected] <[email protected]> To: Woundy, Richard Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thu Mar 18 03:18:11 2010 Subject: Re: [alto] Comments on provisioned bandwidth and ALTO As you point out, allowing third party to query ALTO servers to determine the provisioned bandwidth of *any user* has privacy implications. However, the same privacy implications do not apply if a user wants to query the provisioned bandwidth of the broadband connection it purchased. There could be access limitations, however. For example, a user that is connected to Starbucks WiFi is likely to be limited from querying the connection bandwidth. Also, an application may want to query its gateway or cable modem to determine the current load at the modem. Such a mechanism does not require querying any ISP managed ALTO server. It will be helpful to clarify these two issues. Salman On Thu, 18 Mar 2010, Woundy, Richard wrote: > Folks, > > I had provided some offline comments about the inclusion of provisioned > bandwidth in ALTO. Enrico asked me to re-send them to the mailing list. I can > also discuss in next week's ALTO session. > > Here are my privacy concerns. > > 1. Depending on the ISP's pricing and rollout of bandwidth tiers, there may > be relatively few subscribers within a particular tier. Therefore a third > party consuming ALTO provisioned bandwidth information can make a good guess > about the identity of a subscriber within a "rarely used" bandwidth tier. > > 2. Separately, a third party consuming ALTO provisioned bandwidth information > may be able to make an informed guess about the economic status of a > subscriber based on the bandwidth tier, which may not be desirable to the > subscriber. > > 3. The subscriber may not intend to use *all* provisioned bandwidth for a > particular application (e.g. P2P). For example, perhaps the subscriber > intends to use provisioned uplink bandwidth for telecommuting, telepresence, > online storage backups, etc. A third party consuming ALTO provisioned > bandwidth information should be aware that the subscriber's provisioned > bandwidth may be reserved for different applications. > > Here are my thoughts on dynamic address re-allocation. > > ISPs reallocate IPv4 subnets within their infrastructure from time to time, > partly to ensure the efficient usage of IPv4 addresses (a scarce resource), > and partly to enable efficient route tables within their network routers. The > frequency of these "renumbering events" depend on the growth in number of > subscribers and the availability of address space within the ISP. As a > result, a subscriber's household device could retain an IPv4 address for as > short as a few minutes, or for months at a time or even longer. > > Some folks have suggested that ISPs providing ALTO services could sub-divide > their subscribers' devices into different IPv4 subnets (or certain IPv4 > address ranges) based on the purchased service tier, as well as based on the > location in the network topology. The problem is that this sub-allocation of > IPv4 subnets tends to decrease the efficiency of IPv4 address allocation. A > growing ISP that needs to maintain high efficiency of IPv4 address > utilization may be reluctant to jeopardize their future acquisition of IPv4 > address space. > > Therefore, consumers of per-user ALTO information should assume that > subscribers retain IPv4 addresses for only a relatively short period of time, > e.g. minutes, and that subscribers of different service tiers will co-exist > in some ISP's IPv4 subnets. > > -- Rich > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of alto > issue tracker > Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 5:14 AM > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: [alto] #4: Provisioned bandwidth > > #4: Provisioned bandwidth > ---------------------------------------------+------------------------------ > Reporter: enrico.maro...@… | Owner: Sebastian Kiesel > <ietf-a...@…> > Type: enhancement | Status: new > Priority: major | Milestone: > Component: reqs | Version: > Severity: - | Keywords: > ---------------------------------------------+------------------------------ > The document should track (and ideally stimulate discussion to reach > consensus) the arguments about providing information about provisioned > bandwidth, as it may have non trivial impact on the protocol design. The > topic was discussed in [wiki:Ietf76 Hiroshima] and previously on the > mailing list: > [http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/alto/current/msg00322.html] > [http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/alto/current/msg00476.html] > > -- > Ticket URL: <https://svn.tools.ietf.org/wg/alto/trac/ticket/4> > alto <http://tools.ietf.org/alto/> > > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
