Let's say that I don't buy the justification contained in the
document.
Having a fixed hash function in an algorithm is not acceptable,
period.
Variable hashing functions open the possibility of a "downgrade"
attack,
in which an attacker manages to produce the same "address bits"
using a
> => security considerations explain that:
> - SHA1 can be replaced by something else
> - SHA1 is still good for this usage
> - if SHA1 or another important detail is changed then another prefix
>must be used.
>
>The syntax should allow for an
>identification of the algorithm as par
In your previous mail you wrote:
I am supportive of the genral idea of reserving a prefix for
"statistically unique identifiers" that are derived from some kind of
cryptographic ID.
=> thanks
However, I have a problem with the specified syntax:
Input := any bitstring
Le 7 sept. 05 à 13:17, Brian Haberman a écrit :
>
> On Sep 7, 2005, at 2:38, Ebalard, Arnaud wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Le 7 sept. 05 à 02:22, Bob Hinden a écrit :
>>
>> Bob,
>>
>>
>>> Section 2.4 defines the prefix (i.e., FE80::/10) that identifies
>>> the address as link-local addresses type and Section
On Sep 7, 2005, at 2:38, Ebalard, Arnaud wrote:
Le 7 sept. 05 à 02:22, Bob Hinden a écrit :
Bob,
Section 2.4 defines the prefix (i.e., FE80::/10) that identifies
the address as link-local addresses type and Section 2.5.6 defines
the exact format (i.e., prefix, zeros, IID) of Link-Local add
Christian,
We would appreciate very much feedback from members of the
IPv6 WG on this internet draft.
I am supportive of the genral idea of reserving a prefix for
"statistically unique identifiers" that are derived from some
kind of cryptographic ID.
Thanks for your support!
However, I hav
