Fernando,
On 3/27/12 8:57 AM, Fernando Gont wrote:
Folks,
I think that one error in which we have incurred at least in the couple
of years (myself included) is that we focus our discussion on
"mac-derived addresses vs privacy addresses" when the question should
really be about "stable addresses
Dear all
I'm working on ETSI and ISO standardization for ITS (vehicular
communication) where location privacy at the IPv6 layer is one of big
concerns. From the viewpoint of IPv6 ITS communication, we definitely need
to preserve location privacy. Accordingly, I strongly support the method
describe
On 03/27/2012 04:44 PM, Dominik Elsbroek wrote:
> since I got confused on the discussion in the plenary this morning: I
> think we have to consider that having a temporary address like defined
> in RFC 4941 does not prevent from or even mitigates the scanning
> problem mentioned this morning in dis
Hi Fernando,
since I got confused on the discussion in the plenary this morning: I
think we have to consider that having a temporary address like defined
in RFC 4941 does not prevent from or even mitigates the scanning
problem mentioned this morning in discussion. Scanning MAC-address
derived addr
Folks,
I think that one error in which we have incurred at least in the couple
of years (myself included) is that we focus our discussion on
"mac-derived addresses vs privacy addresses" when the question should
really be about "stable addresses vs. temporary addresses".
Clearly, we don't want any
