[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > Er, that doesn't strike me as especially private. If there's
> > a named device at that /64, I can pretty much use that subnet
> > prefix to triangulate who the manufactured address is. I assume
> > that many/most widgets will be named since they want to recieve
> > INVITE's, and other peer-peer services.
>
> if you want to accept inbound connections, i guess it is highly
> difficult to keep privacy anyways. what is your definition of
> "privacy" here? traffic analysis is inherently a hard problem.
> RFC3041 only solves (possible) issue (for those who cares) with
> EUI64-derived interface identifier, not others.
You're probably right. I guess I find the whole concept
of address privacy as it's constituted in RFC3041 to be
pretty, well, underwhelming on the privacy front. If you
want privacy, use an application layer anonymizer.
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
