Also, I wonder why the HMAC set of functions [1] from OpenSSL were not
used. Could they be applied here?
Sure. But jeeze, it's two hash functions with multiple pretty good
reference implementations. Less than 4k added to the basic babeld
binary, if that. no lib needed.
That said, I had
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 5:18 PM Dave Taht wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 5:06 PM Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> >
> > >> Yeah, we should just include an implementation of SHA-256 in the code.
> >
> > > There's also the option...
> >
> > Given that the main selling point of HMAC vs. DTLS is that
On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 5:06 PM Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>
> >> Yeah, we should just include an implementation of SHA-256 in the code.
>
> > There's also the option...
>
> Given that the main selling point of HMAC vs. DTLS is that it has no
> dependencies, it wouldn't be particularly wise to
>> Yeah, we should just include an implementation of SHA-256 in the code.
> There's also the option...
Given that the main selling point of HMAC vs. DTLS is that it has no
dependencies, it wouldn't be particularly wise to make the reference
implementation depend on a Linux-specific library.
Of
Antonin Décimo writes:
>>> I do have one objection to the codebase, in that it pulls in
>>> libgcrypt, ssl, and pthreads... about 5MB? of libs... for two hash
>>> functions.
>>
>> Yeah, we should just include an implementation of SHA-256 in the code.
>
> There's also the option of using the
I'm willing (since I have that whole merge in my head still) - to try
to merge up hmac-challenge if that will help move things along. ?
Well, my take on it was that the hmac codebase was very difficult to
move forward
in its current state and needed a rebase on head for it to move forward. I'm
> In looking over the bird patch, it looks like I merged the wrong
> thing.
Yes, it looks like it. hmac-challenge is the right code.
Weronika, perhaps you could rename the branch hmac to something less
exciting?
Dave, please be aware that the HMAC code is not quite finished yet. Once
we got a
Sigh. In looking over the bird patch, it looks like I merged the wrong
thing. Unless challenge is the wrong thing?
https://bird.network.cz/pipermail/bird-users/2018-July/012537.html
Assuming I merged the wrong thing, tell me the right thing, and so
long as I have all teh things I had to do to
So I got around to testing this merge on two boxes this morning. It's
rather noisy when run on a mixed network, but the two boxes I got
running seem to be exchanging routes on
key id key1 type sha1 value deadbeefdeadbeefdeadbeefdeadbeefdeadbeef
default enable-timestamps true hmac key1
I would
