> => 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. => But the person tracking would have to know that the host is a 3GPP host. Otherwise, they won't know that it has a prefix for itself. BTW, this is not specific to 3GPP, the same can be done with home networks. A house that gets a /48 can also be tracked by the same method. Hesham > > > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
