"Tony Hain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In a quick scan of 3041 I didn't see a reference to that, but it was a
> fundemental assumption. If 3041 is updated it would probably help to
> have a clear pointer back to 2462.
Sure, thanks for pointing this. I wasn't referring to rfc3041
though.
My remark was rather generic.
For example, let's say I design DHCP2 where the 65th bit of all
addresses has particular meaning to DHCP2 servers: helps in better
authenticating clients. Also, the 66th bit up to 128th contain a
random number that is used to securely communicate between DHCP2
servers and relays.
Of course, this would have huge advantages for the DHCP2 protocol,
since it allows combining trust properties into addressing and routing
properties. But would this work with other things?
Thanks for any feedback,
Alex
PS: with respect to uniqueness there's a draft on random Interface
ID's without DAD: draft-soto-mobileip-random-iids-00.txt
PPS: with respect to security there's ongoing discussion on Mobile IP,
around a novel method to generate addresses (Computationally
Generated Addresses).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
