Hi Zhou, Thanks for the comment.
> I don't think using CGA by replacing the public key with a timestamp or other random string is a "higher randomzation" address generation method. >Hash is only one technique of generating a random like string, may not be the best one among those specified in RFC4086. I think it is misconception. One problem that I tried to address in my draft (as a update to RFC 4941) is that the RFC might use RFC 4086 (no forcing to use it). This means there might be no good randomization. In one section then the RFC discussed about DHCPv6 and CGA. I only explained how to use CGA if the security is not a concern by having a highly randomized approach. I compared my approach with the approach already exist in the document and assume the case where there is no force to use RFC 4086. Thanks, Regards, Hosnieh > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
