Doesn't a combination of RFC4941 and NPTv6 produce the necessary privacy over both parts of the IPv6 address? (BTW thats a question from an interested observer new to this topic, not a statement - I started following this thread and ended up digging around in the RFCs and drafts the thread uncovered)
Paul Chilton Low Power RF Solutions (formerly Jennic) NXP Semiconductors -----Original Message----- From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of james woodyatt Sent: 10 March 2011 16:02 To: Ran Atkinson Cc: ipv6@ietf.org Subject: Re: draft-gont-6man-managing-privacy-extensions-00.txt On Mar 10, 2011, at 4:10 AM, Ran Atkinson wrote: > > It seems pretty clear that Fred's NPTv6 is going to be deployed in at least > some locations, albeit for entirely different reasons. I'm not sure if that > meets your definition of NAPT66 or not. It does not. NPTv6 only translates the network prefix; it therefore doesn't prevent global tracking of hosts that use EUI-64 interface identifiers. -- james woodyatt <j...@apple.com> member of technical staff, core os networking -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
