From autoconf-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jan 24 07:50:48 2007 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H9haM-0005ew-E7; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 07:50:42 -0500 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H9haL-0005en-Jv for autoconf@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 07:50:41 -0500 Received: from web15603.mail.cnb.yahoo.com ([202.165.102.57]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1H9haE-0004i4-O3 for autoconf@ietf.org; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 07:50:41 -0500 Received: (qmail 13907 invoked by uid 60001); 24 Jan 2007 12:50:29 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com.cn; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:Date:From:Subject:To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Message-ID; b=2guyHkPLe6G1ESXmRCGku7GS/PnHPhMEqFdl30SRm+BRHS3BE2ukX+ElYGMZLOZeMW3tSkx+cF9Pe9ti5vf1QgZAH6v23InPdRtS/CQ2c8HXV9Jizacg7VyPerrQRnRJr3apy1VmMWzl18BYGwPplgRM3A6f8BDUiEFE3ICxbYY=; X-YMail-OSG: uftHIIsVM1lurMRPjRY4wFObbFSwWUzCACFPpHrQ1uLtntS3GEb0jRh9n7KVLct1TKwkuKTxDTYCmw6m5jPyDr4FNU2mcg1Tnf8_LUgo2byg7_VZ3mdMaGGxp9xke2SskS4utld_fg4SxtgJ41fzI9P2Cw-- Received: from [202.120.37.2] by web15603.mail.cnb.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 24 Jan 2007 20:50:29 CST X-Mailer: YahooMailRC/368.3 YahooMailWebService/0.6.132.7 Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 20:50:29 +0800 (CST) From: Longjiang Li To: autoconf@ietf.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <49111.12821.qm@web15603.mail.cnb.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002 Subject: [Autoconf] Is it really necessary to support privacy addressing in mobile ad hoc network? X-BeenThere: autoconf@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Ad-Hoc Network Autoconfiguration WG discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0152491959==" Errors-To: autoconf-bounces@ietf.org --===============0152491959== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1702944998-1169643029=:12821" --0-1702944998-1169643029=:12821 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=gb2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Dear all,=0A=0AI found that current research efforts related to privacy mai= nly focus on IPv6 and mobile IPv6. For example, RFC 3041 has provided Priv= acy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6. Privacy add= ressing makes it more difficult for eavesdroppers and other information c= ollectors to identify when different addresses used in different transacti= ons actually correspond to the same node. In addition, several IETF drafts,= currently active, try to improve privacy for mobile IPv6 by adding e= ncryption option or using ephemeral identifiers. =0A=0AHowever, most exis= ting autoconfiguration efforts designed for MANETs does not concern privacy= at all, though RFC 3041, I guess, may also be extended to MANETs for impro= ving privacy. Recently, I got some inexperienced ideas to enhance privacy= for some existing autoconfiguration methods, but I am not sure whether it = is really important to support privacy addressing in mobile ad hoc networks= ? =0A=0AIs anyone interested in this topic? What are the most important fac= tors for privacy issues in MANETs?=0A=0ABest Regards,=0ALongjiang Li=0A=0A= =0A=0A=0A=09=0A=0A=09=0A=09=09=0A__________________________________________= _________________ =0AMp3=B7=E8=BF=F1=CB=D1-=D0=C2=B8=E8=C8=C8=B8=E8=B8=DF= =CB=D9=CF=C2=0Ahttp://music.yahoo.com.cn/?source=3Dmail_mailbox_footer --0-1702944998-1169643029=:12821 Content-Type: text/html; charset=gb2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear all,

I found that current research efforts= related to privacy mainly focus on IPv6 and mobile IPv6. For example= , RFC 3041 has provided Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfig= uration in IPv6. Privacy addressing makes it more difficult for eaves= droppers and other information collectors to identify when different = addresses used in different transactions actually correspond to the s= ame node. In addition, several IETF drafts, currently active, try&nbs= p; to improve privacy for mobile IPv6 by adding enc= ryption option or using ephemeral identifiers.

However, most= existing autoconfiguration efforts designed for MANETs does not concern pr= ivacy at all, though RFC 3041, I guess, may also be extended to MANETs for = improving privacy. Recently, I got some inexperienced ideas to enhance privac= y for some existing autoconfiguration methods, but I am not sure whether it= is really important to support privacy addressing in mobile ad hoc network= s?

Is anyone interested in this topic? What are the most important = factors for privacy issues in MANETs?

Best Regards,
Longjiang Li<= br>

=0A=09=09

=C7=C0=D7=A2=D1=C5=BB=A2=C3=E2=B7=D1=D3=CA=CF=E4-3.5G=C8= =DD=C1=BF=A3=AC20M=B8=BD=BC=FE=A3=A1 --0-1702944998-1169643029=:12821-- --===============0152491959== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Autoconf mailing list Autoconf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/autoconf --===============0152491959==--