On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 10:52:31AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote: > > but otherwise I don't see how 3041 isn't an adequate answer to the > > specific problem of "privacy in IPv6 as related to using EUI-64", > > not the wider problem of "general privacy in IPv6." That's a much > > harder problem to solve. > > I think the problem is more of a generic sort. Consider > often-seen discussion: > > Q: IPv6 address is quite long, it has MAC-address based part etc. Isn't > it trackable..? > A: Look at RFC3041! > > I.e. RFC3041 is often provided as a patch-all for everything about > privacy. When people use RFC3041, they may think they're "safe". That's > wrong.
The solution there is not to bash 3041, it's to come up with a more broad-based anonymity architecture. In the meantime, every time someone pops up saying "oh no, hardware based addresses reveal your secret MAC ADDRESS", 3041 is an answer. It's not a great answer, but it's a pretty stupid question. -- David Terrell | "To increase the hype, I'm gonna release a bunch Nebcorp PM | of BLT variants (NetBLT, FreeBLT, BLT386, etc) [EMAIL PROTECTED] | and create artificial rivalries." wwn.nebcorp.com | - Brian Swetland (www.openblt.org) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
