For the AD's information - the suggested hash algorithm in
Appendix A definitely needs to be revised. It isn't normative
so it can be taken care of a little later, along with any AD comments.
Regards
Brian Carpenter
On 2011-06-07 02:37, Brian Haberman wrote:
> Jari & Ralph,
> On behalf of
below...
On 2011-06-07 11:22, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Ran,
>
> On Jun 6, 2011, at 9:39 AM, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>
>> I would be reluctant to advocate use of a hash algorithm
>> as computationally expensive as MD5() for generating an
>> IPv6 Flow Label.
>>
>> My sense is that a thoughtful implementer
Ran,
On Jun 6, 2011, at 9:39 AM, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>
> I would be reluctant to advocate use of a hash algorithm
> as computationally expensive as MD5() for generating an
> IPv6 Flow Label.
>
> My sense is that a thoughtful implementer likely would
> choose the least computationally expensive
I would be reluctant to advocate use of a hash algorithm
as computationally expensive as MD5() for generating an
IPv6 Flow Label.
My sense is that a thoughtful implementer likely would
choose the least computationally expensive algorithm
that would suffice to generate a Flow Label value
suitab
Jari & Ralph,
On behalf of the 6MAN Working Group, the chairs request the
advancement of:
Title : IPv6 Flow Label Specification
Author(s) : Shane Amante
Brian Carpenter
Sheng Jiang
Jarno Rajahalme
Filename : draft-ietf-6ma
Jari & Ralph,
On behalf of the 6MAN Working Group, the chairs request the
advancement of:
Title : Rationale for update to the IPv6 flow label
specification
Author(s) : Shane Amante
Brian Carpenter
Sheng Jiang
Filename : dr
Jari & Ralph,
On behalf of the 6MAN Working Group, the chairs request the
advancement of:
Title : Using the IPv6 flow label for equal cost multipath
routing and link aggregation in tunnels
Author(s) : B. Carpenter, S. Amante
Filename : draft-ietf-6man-flow
> From: v6ops-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf
> Of Stephen Farrell
> Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 7:42 AM
> Sure. Feel free to send RFC numbers and we'll include
> some in the draft response that we'll circulate in a
> while. (So no need to spam everyone with those, just
On 05/06/11 21:30, Arturo Servin wrote:
>
> I do not see why the ITU has to start from zero.
What Eliot said.
> There are several (or some at least) very good RFC and I+D documents related
> to IPv6 security.
Sure. Feel free to send RFC numbers and we'll include
some in the draft res
Arturo,
On 6/5/11 10:30 PM, Arturo Servin wrote:
> I do not see why the ITU has to start from zero. There are several (or
> some at least) very good RFC and I+D documents related to IPv6 security. I
> think we should recommend them to ITU, it is good that they let us know, it
> would be b
10 matches
Mail list logo
