Eliot Lear <l...@cisco.com> wrote:
> On 7/6/17 9:09 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 04:34:05PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> It used to be, but the recommendation today is a pseudo-random
>>> value (RFC7217). In any case it's a software choice.
>> brand new recommendations do not equate to be expected
>> standard practice in products. Would be very good to have
>> folks with practical insight into various products to
>> provide more information.
> On this point, I think it's quite likely that we will see a good number
> of devices fielded that will do a lousy job of PRNG, and so it would be
> inadvisable for them to implement RFC7217, lest they test their DAD code
> in ways not really intended. I'm not thinking about iPhones here, but
> energy harvesting devices like some light switches, and a bunch of,
> well,... crap.
> The question is whether you should design for these devices. IMHO "no"
> is a perfectly valid answer, but I'm still a bit skeptical about the
> value of 7217 for these class of devices in any event.
1) Constrained devices are out of scope for ANIMA.
2) even if they were in scope, kinetic powered light switches are not
good candidates for join proxies. Light bulbs, however.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Anima mailing list Anima@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
