> With regards to this, I think we came to agreement on new text for > the section, something that would look like this:
I'm OK with this. My comment was really more to do with this: > > 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. "no privacy benefit" might be a bit strong. But I would tend to agree that the benefits are limited if in fact the /64 identifies the handset. > > 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. AFAIK, 3GPP is not mandating the use of temporary addresses. draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-01.txt makes this pretty clear. > => But the person tracking would have to know that the host is a > 3GPP host. This seems like it might well be straightforward information to determine. > 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. Agreed. Temporary addresses are just one technique, that has some benefits in some environments. But there also limitations. Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
