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 matching. 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. Craig. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
