On 2012-01-24 17:17, Fernando Gont wrote:
On 01/24/2012 12:04 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
Effectively the equivalent algorithm in RFC 6437 is
Flow Label = F(Srce Addr, Dest Addr, Protocol #, Srce Port, Dest Port,
Secret Key)
which is less predictable, even if the port number is not
Hi, Brian,
On 01/24/2012 05:18 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
which is less predictable, even if the port number is not randomized.
If the attacker can predict the algorithm in
draft-gont-6man-flowlabel-security-02.txt, he knows the IPv6 addresses
of the two endpoints, and the secret key. So I
On 2012-01-25 10:02, Fernando Gont wrote:
Hi, Brian,
On 01/24/2012 05:18 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
which is less predictable, even if the port number is not randomized.
If the attacker can predict the algorithm in
draft-gont-6man-flowlabel-security-02.txt, he knows the IPv6 addresses
of
Hi,
On 2012/01/23, at 16:09, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 43f32baa-c3cb-4214-bce7-b1cd75ec5...@nttv6.net, Arifumi
Matsumoto writes:
Mark,
thank you for your comment.
As you mention it, it should be less harmful to give the whole ULA
block a lower precedence value, if we assume ULA
In message 120e3724-7356-45f1-b70c-0b3081d8e...@nttv6.net, Arifumi Matsumoto
writes:
Hi,
On 2012/01/23, at 16:09, Mark Andrews wrote:
In message 43f32baa-c3cb-4214-bce7-b1cd75ec5...@nttv6.net, Arifumi Matsum
oto writes:
Mark,
thank you for your comment.
As you mention it, it
