[Search] [txt|pdfized|bibtex] [Tracker] [Email] [Nits]
Versions: 00 01 02                                                      
Internet Engineering Task Force                            Wassim Haddad
Mobility Privacy                                         Suresh Krishnan
Internet Draft                                         Ericsson Research
Expires December 2005                                     Francis Dupont
                                                                  Point6
                                                         Marcelo Bagnulo
                                                                    UC3M
                                                       Hannes Tschofenig
                                                                 Siemens
                                                               June 2005



           Anonymity and Unlinkability Extension for CGA-OMIPv6

                <draft-haddad-privacy-omipv6-anonymity-00>


Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with section 6 of BCP 79.

   This document is an Internet Draft and is in full conformance with
   all provisions of Section 10 of RFC 2026.

   This document is an Internet-Draft.  Internet-Drafts are working
   documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its
   areas, and its working groups.  Note that other groups may also
   distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts.
   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six
   months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other
   documents at any time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-
   Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as
   "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   Distribution of this memo is unlimited



Abstract

   The "Optimized Mobile IPv6 with CGA" [CGA-OMIPv6] protocol
   specifies a new route optimization (RO) technique. This document
   describes a new extension to be added to the CGA-OMIPv6 protocol
   in order to provide the anonymity and the unlinkability at the
   IP layer.



Haddad, et al.              Expires December 2005               [Page 1]


INTERNET-DRAFT                  OMIPv6 Privacy                 June 2005



Table of contents


   1. Introduction................................................2
   2. Terminology.................................................2
   3. Glossary....................................................3
   4. Problem Statement...........................................4
   5. Proposed Solution...........................................6
   6. Packet Format...............................................9
   7. Privacy Considerations.....................................11
   8. Security Considerations....................................12
   9. Normative References.......................................13
   10. Informative References....................................13
   11. Authors' Addresses........................................14
   Intellectual Property Statement...............................16
   Disclaimer of Validity........................................16
   Copyright Statement...........................................16



1. Introduction

   CGA-OMIPv6 (called "OMIPv6" in the rest of the document for
   simplicity) protocol specifies a new route optimization (RO),
   which reduces the amount of signaling messages, the handover
   latency and improves the overall security.

   However, OMIPv6 protocol lacks privacy support, namely
   anonymity/pseudonymity and unlinkability. Supporting these
   privacy aspects in OMIPv6 would allow a mobile user to move
   outside its home network without disclosing its real IPv6 home
   address, and thereby to prevent the ability to correlate
   actions at this layer.

   This document describes privacy extensions to the OMIPv6
   protocol.



2. Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "MAY"
   in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2219
   [TERM].









Haddad, et al.              Expires December 2005               [Page 2]


INTERNET-DRAFT                  OMIPv6 Privacy                 June 2005



3. Glossary


   Anonymity

       Anonymity ensures that a user may use a resource or service
       without disclosing the user's identity.

       Anonymity in wireless networks means that neither the mobile
       node nor its system software shall by default expose any
       information, that allows any conclusions on the owner or
       current use of the node.

       Consequently, in scenarios where a device and/or network
       identifiers are used (e.g., MAC address, IP address),
       neither the communication partner nor any outside attacker
       should be able to disclose the relationship between the
       respective identifier and the user's identity.


   Pseudonymity

       Pseudonymity is a weaker property related to anonymity. It
       means that one cannot identify an entity, but it may be
       possible to prove that two pseudonymous acts were performed
       by the same entity.


   Unlinkability

       Two events are unlinkable if they are no more and no less
       related than they are related concerning the a-priori
       knowledge.

       Unlinkability ensures that a user may make use of resources
       or services without others being able to link the use of
       these services together.

       In hiding the mobile node's current location, unlinkability
       feature removes any possible correlation between two
       successive IP handovers performed by the same mobile node.


   For more information about privacy aspects and location privacy
   please refer to [MOMIPRIV].








Haddad, et al.              Expires December 2005               [Page 3]


INTERNET-DRAFT                  OMIPv6 Privacy                 June 2005



4. Problem Statement

   OMIPv6 protocol introduces a new route optimization (RO) mode,
   which reduces the load of signaling messages, i.e., mainly by
   eliminating the HoTI/HoT messages, offers a semi-permanent
   security association (SA) between the mobile node (MN) and the
   correspondent node (CN) and improves the overall security of
   the MN <-> CN communication.

   However, OMIPv6 allows the CN and any potential eavesdropper
   located on the path between the MN and the CN to first identify
   the mobile node via its IPv6 Home Address (HoA) and then to
   trace its movements in real time across the Internet, thus
   seriously violating its privacy. Such scenario is feasible by
   simply looking into the Binding Update (BU) message(s) sent by
   the MN to the CN, which carries among other parameters, the MN's
   HoA and its new current topological location, i.e., disclosed in
   its care-of address (CoA).

   In addition to the BU message(s), the eavesdropper can learn
   and trace the MN's movements by looking into the data packets
   exchanged with the CN.
   In fact, the main RO mode (detailed in [MIPv6]) defined two
   mobility extension headers, which carry the MN's home address.
   The first one is the Home Address Option (HAO) and is inserted
   in each data packet sent by the MN to the CN on the direct path.
   The second one is a Routing Header (RH) and is inserted in each
   data packet sent by the CN to the MN on the direct path.

   Based on the above, it appears that in order to keep the
   exchange of data packets between the two endpoints flowing on
   the direct path, only the home address can be hidden from both
   the CN and any potential eavesdropper(s) located on the direct
   path.
   Consequently, any solution for the privacy problem in OMIPv6
   MUST prevent the CN from falling back to the bidirectional (BT)
   mode under any circumstance(s), since data packets sent by the
   CN are addressed to the MN's HoA. The BT mode is detailed in
   [MIPv6].

   But it should be noted that replacing the real MN's HoA with a
   static (or even dynamic) pseudo-HoA can still allow the
   eavesdropper to correlate between MN's movements across the
   Internet, thus breaking the unlinkability feature. Such
   correlation can be accomplished by simply tracing the BU
   messages via the sequence number carried by each message. The
   seriousness of such correlation is tightly related to how
   difficult is for the eavesdropper to discover the MN's real HoA
   (e.g., based on prior knowledge and/or other identifier(s),
   which are already known or can be discovered at a further stage,



Haddad, et al.              Expires December 2005               [Page 4]


INTERNET-DRAFT                  OMIPv6 Privacy                 June 2005



   etc). In fact, such knowledge can reveal all MN's pseudo-HAs and
   their corresponding CoAs as well as the exact time of each
   movement.

   The unlinkability feature can also be broken if an eavesdropper
   is able to correlate between two data packets exchanged between
   the MN and the CN and carrying different CoAs, but associated to
   the same pseudo-HoA. Such correlation may reveal the exact time
   of the MN's movement(s) regardless of the content of the BU
   message. In addition, tracing the BU message may also help the
   eavesdropper correlate between the MIPv6 signaling messages and
   the data packets (namely the pseudo-HoA and/or CoA carried by
   the BU message with the address(es) carried by the data packet.

   Consequently, we argue that any solution for privacy related
   to the network layer mobility only should also offer the
   unlinkability feature by fulfilling the following requirements:

      - prevent disclosing the MN's HoA in any BU message.

      - avoid using the same pseudo-HoA in more than one BU
        message.

      - prevent the possibility of tracing the BU messages via the
        sequence number.

      - prevent any correlation between data packets exchanged
        with the current CoA and the next BU message sent after
        performing an IP handover.

      - prevent any correlation between data carried by the BU
        message and data packets exchanged after receiving the BA
        message.


   Finally, it should be noted that any potential solution, which
   addresses privacy as motivated above, should take the scenario
   where a mobile node starts communicating end-to-end with a CN
   from its home network before switching to a foreign network(s)
   into consideration.













Haddad, et al.              Expires December 2005               [Page 5]


INTERNET-DRAFT                  OMIPv6 Privacy                 June 2005



5. Proposed Solution

   Our suggested solution can be used regardless of whether the MN
   is establishing its session from its home network or from a
   visited network. It consists of three components:

   a) the "P" bit that is carried in the Pre-Binding Update (PBU),
      the Pre-Binding Test (PBT) and the Binding Update (BU)
      message; this bit demands additional processing guidelines
      (including sequence number handling).

   b) replacing the home address carried within the Home Address
      Option (HAO) with an ephemeral identifier.

   c) associating the interface identifier (iid) of the MN's home
      address with the cryptographically-Based Identifiers (CBID).


   As a first step, a Pre-Binding Update (PBU) message is sent
   directly from the MN to the CN. The PBU message carried a newly
   introduced Privacy (P) bit set and thereby asks the CN to skip
   any home address test, and also to avoid any possible fallback
   to the bidirectional tunneling mode (described in [MIPv6])
   during the subsequent data exchange.

   The MN MUST set the "P" bit in the PBU message, regardless of
   the MN's location (also while staying at the home network), and
   in the BU message sent after receiving the Pre-Binding Test
   (PBT) message from the CN.

   Additionally, the MN MUST replace the home address inserted in
   the Home Address Option (HAO) with a "Virtual Home Address"
   (VHoA). The VHoA sent in the first BU message MUST be a
   statistically unique cryptographically generated and verifiable
   identifier [CBID]. Note that using the CBID technology in Mobile
   IPv6 for privacy purposes has been introduced in [MIPriv].

   During the first exchange of signaling messages between the two
   endpoints, and in order to enable the CN to check if it is still
   talking to the same MN when receiving the first BU message, the
   MN MUST insert in the PBU message the value obtained from
   hashing the VHoA (note that in this case, the VHoA is the CBID,
   thus the value is equal to SHA1(CBID) in the PBU message.

   After receiving the PBU message, the CN computes a challenge
   from the MN's CoA, the content of the HAO and a local secret.
   Then it inserts the challenge into the PBT message and returns
   it to the MN. When the MN gets the PBT message, it sends a BU
   message carrying the "P" bit, the challenge and inserts the real
   CBID into the HAO. Note that the iid of the MN's CoA sent in the



Haddad, et al.              Expires December 2005               [Page 6]


INTERNET-DRAFT                  OMIPv6 Privacy                 June 2005



   PBU and the BU messages SHOULD be generated from hashing the
   CBID in the following way:

                   iid(CoA) = First(64, SHA1(CBID))

   Where:

        - SHA1 is a hashing function
        - CBID is a cryptographically generated identifier
        - First(size,input) is a function used to indicate
          truncation of the input data so that only the first
          size bits remain to be used.
        - iid is the interface identifier


   Upon receiving the first BU message with the "P" bit set, the CN
   starts by checking its validity. For this purpose, it will hash
   the content of the HAO, i.e., the CBID, and compares the first
   64 bits of the resulting hash with the CoA's iid. After that, it
   will re-compute the challenge and compare it to the one sent in
   the message. The third step after a successful validation would
   be to create an entry in the BCE for the MN's VHoA and the CoA.
   The CN computes also a long lifetime shared secret (i.e., SKbm)
   and sends it back to the MN in the BA message as described in
   [OMIPv6].

   The presence of the "P" bit in the BU message is also used to
   request the CN to replace the sequence number carried by the BU
   message, in its BCE with the "next" value, i.e., expected in
   the next BU message sent by the MN. Such value is called the
   "Sequence Value" SQV and is used to prevent replay attacks and
   to allow the CN to identify the MN's corresponding entry in its
   BCEs when processing a BU message carrying the "P" bit.

   In OMIPv6, each time the MN sends a BU message, it MUST
   increment the sequence number. With the privacy extensions
   introduced by this document, both endpoints MUST increment the
   SQV with a constant value equal to the one obtained from hashing
   the SKbm. Finally, the incremented SQV is hashed, inserted by
   the MN into the BU message and sent it to the CN.

   The two entities MUST compute the next SQV (nSQV) in the
   following way:

                   Khbm = SHA1(SKbm)

                   nSQV = First(64, SHA1((pSQV) | Khbm))

   Where:




Haddad, et al.              Expires December 2005               [Page 7]


INTERNET-DRAFT                  OMIPv6 Privacy                 June 2005



        - SKbm is a long lifetime binding management key
        - Khbm is the hashed binding management key
        - pSQV is the previous SQV, i.e., SQV sent in the last BU
          message sent by the MN and already processed by the CN.
        - nSQV is the hasht value of the next SQV computed during
          updating the BCE with the BU message carrying the pSQV.


   The CN MUST compute and store the nSQV during creating/updating
   the MN's entry in its BCE, and the MN MUST compute and send a
   new SQV in all subsequent BU messages sent to the CN.

   In addition, all subsequent BU messages sent after the first
   one, SHOULD carry a VHoA, which is generated from hashing the
   nCoA, i.e., nVHoA is equal to SHA1(nCoA), sent in the message.

   However, it should be noted that the CN SHOULD NOT store in the
   MN's corresponding entry the new CoA (nCoA) and new VHoA (nVHoA)
   carried in the BU message. In fact, besides computing the nSQV
   and storing it in the corresponding entry, the CN SHOULD also
   compute another address pair (CoA, VHoA) to be used in the data
   packets exchange following the BCE creation/update. These two
   addresses are called "expected CoA" (eCoA) and "expected VHoA"
   (eVHoA).

   The two expected addresses are computed in the following way:

       iid(eCoA) = First(64, SHA1(Khbm | nCoA Subnet Prefix))

       eVHoA = SHA1(eCoA)

   Where:

        - nCoA is the MN's care-of address sent in the BU message.
        - eVHoA is the pseudo-home address carried in the HAO and
          RH headers in all data packets.

   The subnet prefix of the nCoA MUST be the same as the one sent
   by the MN in the BU message (note that this technique is similar
   to the one defined in [HBA]). Note that in such scenario, the CN
   MUST update the MN's entry in its BCE with the eCoA and eVHoA.
   However, the BA message sent to the MN MUST carry the nCoA and
   nVHoA.

   As mentioned above, when the MN sends a BU message carrying the
   "P" bit, the SQV MUST be used alone by the CN to detect the
   presence of an entry corresponding to the MN in its BCE. If an
   entry containing the same SQV is found, then the CN SHOULD
   proceed to check the signature before updating the corresponding
   entry with the eCoA, eVHoA and nSQV.



Haddad, et al.              Expires December 2005               [Page 8]


INTERNET-DRAFT                  OMIPv6 Privacy                 June 2005



6. Packet Format

   This proposal defines a new bit called the Privacy (P) bit to be
   added to the Pre-BU and BU messages. The MN MUST set the "P" bit
   in both messages and in all subsequent BU messages as long as it
   needs to keep its real home IP address undisclosed.

   When used in the Pre-BU message, the "P" bit indicates to the CN
   to limit the address test to the CoA only and also to include
   the VHoA in computing the nonce value sent in the Pre-Binding
   Test (PBT) message.

   When used in the BU message, the "P" bit is used for three
   different purposes. The first one is to ask the CN to use the
   sequence number to locate the MN's corresponding BCE. The second
   one is to notify the CN to NOT send any data packet carrying the
   MN's home pseudo-address, i.e., VHAO, as destination address.

   The third purpose is to ask the CN to compute the eCoA, the
   eVHoA, the new SQV and store them in the MN's corresponding BCE.

   When used in the Pre-BU message, the structure of the message
   will be as it follows:


   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                                  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                  |P|         Reserved            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                                                               |
  +                                                               +
  |                                                               |
  +                        Care-of Address                        +
  |                                                               |
  +                                                               +
  |                                                               |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                                                               |
  +                  Pre-Binding Update Cookie                    +
  |                                                               |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                                                               |
  .                                                               .
  .                        Mobility Options                       .
  .                                                               .
  |                                                               |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+





Haddad, et al.              Expires December 2005               [Page 9]


NTERNET-DRAFT                   OMIPv6 Privacy                 June 2005



   The different fields carried in the Pre-BU message are detailed
   in [OMIPv6].

   When used in the BU message, the structure of the message will
   be as it follows:


   0                   1                   2                   3
   0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
                                  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
                                  |          Sequence #           |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |A|H|L|K|P|      Reserved       |           Lifetime            |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
  |                                                               |
  .                                                               .
  .                        Mobility options                       .
  .                                                               .
  |                                                               |
  +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+



   The different fields carried in the BU message are detailed in
   [MIPv6].




























Haddad, et al.              Expires December 2005              [Page 10]


INTERNET-DRAFT                  OMIPv6 Privacy                 June 2005



7. Privacy Considerations

   This memo describes an extension, which makes the MN's real
   identity anonymous for both the CN and any malicious
   eavesdropper(s) located on the path between the MN and the CN.

   Our solution aims to present the MN's HoA as any other CoA that
   the MN may use during its movements across the Internet.
   However, our solution is based on the assumption that the BU
   messages exchanged between the MN and its HA are protected with
   an ESP tunnel according to [MIP6-IKE] and [MIP6-IKEv2].

   The suggested solution provides the anonymity feature to the MN
   during exchanging data packets and signaling messages with the
   CN. It also provides the unlinkability feature during and after
   performing IP handovers, by making it difficult for an
   eavesdropper to correlate between two successive IP handoffs
   performed by the same MN. The unlinkability between these events
   aims to enhance the anonymity feature.
   However, it should be noted that the unlinkability protection is
   limited against eavesdroppers located on the path between the MN
   and the CN and does not prevent the CN to trace the MN's
   movements in real time.

   The suggested solution allows the MN to select when and where
   the anonymity feature should be activated. But it should be
   noted that it works only when the MN initiates the session.
   Actually, when the CN initiates the session, it uses the MN's
   home address (HoA). In such scenario, the MN can hide its
   current location from the CN by switching to the bidirectional
   tunneling mode.

   It is worth mentioning that the anonymity concept is very much
   context dependent. In order to quantify anonymity with concrete
   situations, one would have to describe the system context, which
   is practically not always possible for large open systems
   [ANON].
   Consequently, the efficiency of the suggested solution is
   strongly related to two key factors: the diversity and load of
   the traffic circulating in parallel with the MN's traffic, on
   the same portion(s) of the direct path, which is monitored by an
   eavesdropper(s).

   Finally, the suggested solution strongly recommends using the
   Privacy Extension proposal [PRIVACY], in configuring the care-of
   address(es) sent by the MN in all BU messages except for the BU
   message sent after receiving a PBT message, i.e., in which the
   CoA is derived from the CBID.





Haddad, et al.              Expires December 2005              [Page 11]


INTERNET-DRAFT                  OMIPv6 Privacy                 June 2005



8. Security Considerations

   The suggested solution does not introduce new attacks nor does
   it amplify threats. However, it is important to mention that it
   makes the switch to the MIPv6 BT mode impossible.

   The suggested solution aims to hide the mobile user's real
   identity when moving outside its home network or from its home
   network to foreign networks. Making the MN anonymous (with
   regard to the used home address) to potential eavesdroppers may
   help to prevent attacks, thus improves the overall security.










































Haddad, et al.              Expires December 2005              [Page 12]


INTERNET-DRAFT                  OMIPv6 Privacy                 June 2005



9. Normative References


   [CGA-OMIPv6]   W. Haddad, L. Madour, J. Arkko and F. Dupont,
                  "Applying Cryptographically Generated Addresses to
                  Optimize MIPv6 (CGA-OMIPv6)",
                  draft-haddad-mip6-cga-omipv6-04, May, 2005.


   [MIPv6]        D. Johnson, C. Perkins and J. Arkko, "Mobility
                  Support in IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.


   [MIP6-IKE]     J. Arkko, V. Devarapalli, F. Dupont, "Using IPsec
                  to Protect Mobile IPv6 Signaling Between Mobile
                  Nodes and Home Agents", RFC 3776, June 2004.


   [MIP6-IKEv2]   V. Devarapalli, "Mobile IPv6 Operation with IKEv2
                  and the revised IPsec Architecture",
                  draft-ietf-mip6-ikev2-ipsec-01, February 2005.


   [TERM]         S. Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
                  Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.



10. Informative References


   [ANON]         A. Pfitzmann et al. "Anonymity, Unobservability,
                  Pseudonymity, and Identity Management - A Proposal
                  for Terminology", Draft v0.21, September, 2004.


   [CBID]         G. Montenegro, C. Castelluccia, "Cryptographically-
                  Based Identifiers (CBID): Concepts and Applications",
                  ACM Transaction on Information and System Security
                  (TISSEC), February 2004.


   [HBA]          M. Bagnulo, "Hash Based Addresses (HBA)",
                  draft-ietf-multi6-hba-00, December 2004.


   [MIPriv]       C. Castelluccia, F. Dupont, G. Montenegro, "A Simple
                  Privacy Extension to Mobile IPv6", IEEE/IFIP
                  International Conference on Mobile and Wireless
                  Communication Networks (MWCN), Paris, France, October



Haddad, et al.              Expires December 2005              [Page 13]


INTERNET-DRAFT                  OMIPv6 Privacy                 June 2005



                  2004.


   [MOMIPRIV]     W. Haddad, E. Nordmark, F. Dupont, M. Bagnulo, S.
                  Park and B. Patil, "Privacy for Mobile and
                  Multi-homed Nodes: MoMiPriv Problem Statement",
                  draft-haddad-momipriv-problem-statement-01,
                  February 2005.


   [PRIVACY]      T. Narten, R. Draves and S. Krishnan, "Privacy
                  Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
                  in IPv6", draft-ietf-ipv6-privacy-address-v2-04,
                  May 2005.



11. Authors' Addresses


   Wassim Haddad
   Ericsson Research
   8400, Decarie Blvd
   Town of Mount Royal
   Quebec H4P 2N2
   Canada

   Phone: +1 514 345 7900 (#2334)
   E-Mail: Wassim.Haddad@ericsson.com


   Suresh Krishnan
   Ericsson Research
   8400, Decarie Blvd
   Town of Mount Royal
   Quebec H4P 2N2
   Canada

   Phone: +1 514 345 7900 (#2871)
   E-Mail: Suresh.Krishnan@ericsson.com


   Francis Dupont
   Point6
   c/o GET/ENST Bretagne
   Campus de Rennes
   2, rue de la Chataigneraie
   CS 17607
   35576 Cesson-Sevigne Cedex
   France



Haddad, et al.              Expires December 2005              [Page 14]


INTERNET-DRAFT                  OMIPv6 Privacy                 June 2005



   E-Mail: Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr


   Marcelo Bagnulo
   Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
   Av. Universidad 30
   Leganes, Madrid  28911
   SPAIN

   Phone: +34 91 6249500
   E-Mail: marcelo@it.uc3m.es
   URI: http://www.it.uc3m.es


   Hannes Tschofenig
   Siemens AG
   Otto-Hahn-Ring 6
   81739 Munich
   Germany

   EMail: Hannes.Tschofenig@siemens.com
































Haddad, et al.              Expires December 2005              [Page 15]


INTERNET-DRAFT                  OMIPv6 Privacy                 June 2005



Intellectual Property Statement

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of
   any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be
   claimed to pertain to the implementation or use of the
   technology described in this document or the extent to which any
   license under such rights might or might not be available; nor
   does it represent that it has made any independent effort to
   identify any such rights. Information on the IETF's procedures
   with respect to rights in IETF Documents can be found in BCP 78
   and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the
   use of such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR
   repository at http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention
   any copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other
   proprietary rights that may cover technology that may be
   required to implement this standard. Please address the
   information to the IETF at ietf-ipr@ietf.org.
   The IETF has been notified of intellectual property rights
   claimed in regard to some or all of the specification contained
   in this document. For more information consult the online list
   of claimed rights.


Disclaimer of Validity

   This document and the information contained herein are provided
   on an "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE
   REPRESENTS OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES,
   EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY
   THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY
   RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS
   FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). This document is
   subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in
   BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors retain all
   their rights.





Haddad, et al.              Expires December 2005              [Page 16]