[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Review comments on IPv6 for Second and Third Generation Cellular Hosts

Comment below:

 >   > > > What does this mean?  I thought that laptops would be able
  >   > > > to generate privacy addresses using randomly allocated 
  >   > identifiers.

=> Sure. This is still allowed when following the 
paragraph in the draft. The draft is referring to
the PPP negotiation, which is concerned with the 
interface id for link local addresses only. There is
no mandate to use the same iid for other scopes
of adresses. So privacy is still preserved for addresses
with scopes larger than the link scope. 


I saw a privacy comment in the past (sorry, can't source the original
author) that suggested that because of the procedure for address assignment
where only one host allocates addresses within the prefix that there was no
privacy benefit to regenerating interface identifier portion of the
addresses since (for example) traffic analysis would just be done on prefix

Does this (paraphrased) assessment seem correct? I wouldn't want 3GPP to
mandate a behaviour that they would believe contributed to identity privacy
but, based on some other procedure, did not.

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 majordomo@sunroof.eng.sun.com