Hi Thomas,
> > > 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. > > Isn't this fairly trivial todo? I.e., the cellphone will likely have > an IPv6 address assigned out of a address block that is widely-known > to belong to a carrier providing 3G IPv6 service. Right? With regards to this, I think we came to agreement on new text for the section, something that would look like this: 2.7.1 IP version 6 over PPP in 3GPP A 3GPP cellular host must support the IPv6CP interface identifier option. This option is needed to be able to connect other non-3GPP devices to the Internet using a PPP link between the 3GPP device (MT) and other devices (TE, e.g. a laptop). The MT performs the PDP Context activation based on a request from the TE. This results in an interface identifier to be suggested by the MT to the TE, using the IPv6CP option. To avoid any duplication in link-local addresses between the TE and the GGSN, the MT must always reject other suggested interface identifiers by the TE. This results in the TE always using the interface identifier suggested by the GGSN for its link-local address. The rejection of interface identifiers suggested by the TE is only done for creation of link local addresses, according to 3GPP standards. Privacy addresses [RFC-3041] can be used without an trouble because the cellular host gets a /64 prefix and the GGSN does not configure any global addresses on its point-to-point link towards the cellular host. John -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
