> hmm, I am also a 'mobility junkie' but that is precisely why I am concerned > about a globally unique, persistent, hard to change identifier. Thinking out > loud, how about instead of using the privacy extensions make it possible (for > an end user) to perform some kind of one-way function on the EUI-64 address > that can not be related to the original hardware address. It would then be up > to the user to not apply this function, apply it once or apply it many times, > whatever the trade-off between location privacy and session persistence of > the user dictates.
That's a perfectly fine way to generate (but not validate) a locally unique identifier. However, if you want your mobility with session continuity, you're going to have to exchange that with correspondents. As soon as you do, you've lost privacy. Simply put: privacy is mutually exclusive with session continuity. Pick one. Either is fine, but you can't have both. ;-) Tony _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
