Re: Comments on draft-nordmark-multi6-threats-01

[Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>]

> i guess that also in this point, we should follow the general criteria 
> of not making things worse than currently are.
> SO the level of privacy provided in current single homed IPv6 should be 
> provided in multihoming, i guess.
> 
> (a possibility could be to include the current level of privacy support 
> in IPv6, just as the other current state of the art are presented.)

Good point.
I guess we can start with IPv4 where in some cases (dialup being the
prime example) the IPv4 addresses change over time.
In IPv6 the temporary addresses RFC provide a way to make it
harder to correlate packets from the same machine over time.

So I think the "do no harm" criteria means that the introduction
of multihoming support should still provide the same ability as we
have in IPv6 with temporary addresses.

   Erik