document If you find it useful.
Thanks,
Best,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
o use stable storage to keep a value while I think there is no need to
do so.
> (they use also a hash function on the concatenation of "history"
> and EUI-64.). My reason is, as I explained off list, this will incr
lgorithm, the attacker needs to try different values and
he might not have enough time it is because based on that RFC, the node will
keep its IID maximum for a week and in most cases for a day. This means an
attacker need to try different guessed values in a week (2^24) for the
inputs of SHA256
ents which I applied:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg18732.html
Thanks,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
ivacy
Please review and share your concerns if there are any.
Thank you,
Best,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
a module which supports SeND and other
features). I also tried to download the latest IOS of cisco. It appears that
it is only possible by a valid contract in my profile.
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/prod/collateral/iosswrel/ps8802/ps6968/ps6441/pro
duct_bulletin_c25-409474.html
Thanks,
Hosnieh
Added key pair to the CGA as well :-)
> On 08/09/2013 07:39 PM, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote:
> >>> Check here please:
> >>>
> >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/138/
> >>>
> >>> b) _X__ Royalty-Free, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory Lic
> On 08/09/2013 07:39 PM, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote:
> >>> Check here please:
> >>>
> >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/138/
> >>>
> >>> b) _X__ Royalty-Free, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to
> >>> All I
rithm is not CGA anyway.
But, what I know and had many discussions for my other draft, SSAS, the
problem of using CGA is not IPR otherwise without any reason people accepted
SSAS and I did not need to put effort to convince people :-).
Thanks,
Best,
Hosnieh
med it like that but it does not mean that
I used CGA algorithm as it is different inputs by executing a hash function on
them and the purpose is not like CGA to find a binding between the IP address
and the public key. This means the IPR of CGA is not considered for this
al
se a hash function on
some inputs.
> I won't fight this one with you, Hosnieh. You have received my input.
> It's up to you what you do with it.
>
Check here please:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/138/
b) _X__ Royalty-Free, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory License to All
the farther that you can get from that, the better, I'd say.
:-)
CGA has IPR but it does not prevent the implementation of it. So, no worry
about that. In addition, this algorithm is pseudo-CGA as I had to change
some in
.
One reason is PRNG and the other reason is in case the node doesn't want to
use stable storage.
Thanks,
Best,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
sider for this draft, please
let me know.
Thanks,
Best,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
Hi Brian,
Yes, I followed the discussion about your draft. This is why I asked to be sure
about my assumption.
Thank you for clarifications.
Best,
Hosnieh
>
> Hosnieh,
>
> Please see http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-ug-01
> whose WG Last Call just ended, with a few
Hello,
have a question. Is it possible to use bits u and g (reserved bits) as part
of the IID interface when using any IID generation approach? For instance,
using it for SSAS.
Thanks,
Best,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group
in the public DNS may increase the node's privacy,
but may also impair its ability to support certain applications."
Ok. Thanks.
Best,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Request
nodes. However, it might not occurrence
because of NAT and many other reasons.
Thanks,
Best,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
e the type of nodes (clients or
servers...) and so you should not use "should" for this case. So, I agreed
that I can use "recommended" or "might" and then explain the circumstances
of having public DNS names.
Thanks,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
easily search ipv6ssl and hpi). It is publicly
available.It is not an optimized tool as our purpose was for research. We
will upload a more optimized version soon.
Thanks,
Best,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ie
easily search ipv6ssl and hpi). It is publicly
available.It is not an optimized tool as our purpose was for research. We
will upload a more optimized version soon.
Thanks,
Best,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ie
ld use
Privacy Extension RFC. I do not think you use it for your servers. This is
why I said that nodes who wants to have privacy should not have "DNS names"
or addresses that are defined in DNS but if they want to have they MUST not
generate it based on M
order to force application use randomization RFC.
If there are any more issues that I need to concern please leave your
comment here.
Thanks,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
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.
Tha
trying to say.
If there are any more issues that I need to concern please leave your
comment here.
Thank you,
Best,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
Hello,
Would you please send us your comments so that I can answer them or consider
them. There was not time to respond all of them or to use the comments
improving the draft.
Thank you,
Best,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working
if I have time slot,
there is not much time for discussion. We think it is so important to
clarify the purpose . You can see brief information about this draft here:
http://tools.ietf.org/agenda/87/slides/slides-87-6man-6.pdf
thanks,
Best
New version of SSAS is available online.
- Changes to RPKI introduced in last version
- Introduce new algorithm along with the improvement to the previous algorithm
(to improve the security and usability of IID generation)
Any comments? :-)
Thanks,
Hosnieh
Filename:draft-rafiee-6man
-6man-ra-privacy>
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rafiee-6man-ra-privacy
Best,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
Hello,
Has anybody had a chance to review it?
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rafiee-6man-ra-privacy
thank you,
Regards,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https
en it is probably not the right place to discuss users'
privacy issues too.
Thanks,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
here is nothing stopping someone who wants different interface-id's
> today to go out and implement them.
Regards,
Hosnieh,
Gesendet über MYMAIL für Android
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
share your comments.
Thanks,
Regards,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
hose countries where privacy
makes little sense to them. Some countries talk about privacy, but in action
and reality, there is no privacy for users.
Regards,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administra
ell. Just a suggestion at least.
Thanks , I will do it in the next version.
Thanks again,
Regards,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
n one or
two days as this or many other drafts will not be implemented in one or two
days.
@ Tim: Sorry for bad English in the last messages. When I use a touch screen
device with a small screen to send messages it is really hard to recheck the
sentences.
Thanks,
Regards,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
be a correlation between their generated IID which helps the
attacker understand this is the same node.
Thanks,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
IP addresses of the pcs. If the IP
addresses changes, you can still monitor them based on their MAC and log
this new IP address for this computer for further usage or any new events
and keep this log for a certain period of time.
Thanks for your comments.
Regards,
Hosnieh
follow up to the follow up:
sorry, I sent the wrong link the last time. this is the correct link:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rafiee-6man-ra-privacy
:-| it is not my day.. :-/
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group
Follow up,
I forgot to post the link to the draft :-)
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-rafiee-6man-ra-privacy
Thanks,
Best,
Hosnieh
I first want to thank Dave who took the time to read and comment on my draft
and to discuss the problems associated with it. Based on
you,
Best,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
ld be appreciative if you could find the time to review this draft RFC
and offer constructive comments.
Thanks,
Best,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
of RFCs we
will have some that we can rely on and we are sure that they are not
something not useful. When something does not have our today's requirement
why we need to think about that?!
Regards,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 work
-3-642-37119-6_10#page-1
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3972#section-7.3
The problem with CGA is different and not privacy.
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf
e people are disagree with
that. They would like to have several optional standards and let the
implementers to choose.
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
in the same network as other nodes. It is because if
you try to have privacy by your IP, your MAC address can expose your real
identity (if we skip talking about MAC address spoofing).
Regards,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group m
not privacy, but the computational costs and the RPKI. It does
not need to merge to any other draft to fulfill the privacy. This is why I
am trying to address that problem in my other draft and find the simplest
way. I think the use of ECC is a good option but I will p
Hi Bob,
> >
> > As far as I can see, if I set the RFC 4941 timer to a reasonable
> > value, my IID will change much more often than my subnet prefix.
> >
>
> I would like to see the answer to Brian's comment, I didn't see a response
to it
> in the thread.
>
That is true. But the problem that I a
subnet prefix a
unique IID is generated. If another node would happen to choose the same
number (that the probability of that is very low), then the timestamp
enables the generation of a different value than that for the other node in
this network.
Thanks again,
H
Thanks for your comments,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
address.
Does this alleviate your concerns?
Thanks for your comments,
Hosnieh
>
> I've had a very brief look, because there was one specific thing I was
looking
> for, and it doesn't seem to be there.
>
> Addresses/IIDs have to last at least as long as the transport
layer/appl
ter to
be prepared. Third, how long does it take a proposal to become a RFC and how
long does it take implementers to start the implementation. The answer is
the same as "when" for your question.
regards,
Hosnieh
IETF
w RFC 4941.
In that RFC is an explanation stating that there is a possibility for using CGA
to generate a higher randomized IID but there is nothing mentioned on how to
accomplish this. Here I used a modified version of that algorithm without any
the lifetime of the IP address
during the installation or an option to set it by the users, if people on
the mailing list thinks it would be useful.
Share your technical ideas.
Thanks,
Best,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group
> In other emails
>"you said X", when I never said such a thing.
First, I did not talk on behalf of you. Probably there is misunderstanding in
the meaning of the following sentence in my last email (not emails).
>Since Fernando’s proposal is not going to solve the current problem with RFC
>494
> On 03/05/2013 18:49, Ray Hunter wrote:
> >
> > Hosnieh Rafiee wrote:
> >> Fernando,
> >>
> >> The purpose of your draft was not to obsolete or update RFC 4941 and
> >> you wanted to have your approach as an optional approach in parallel
&g
yours. I
do not see any harmful behavior here as I also asked you 1000 times to
update that rfc instead of having something new or in between two RFCs.
Hosnieh
-Original Message-
From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fg...@si6networks.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 02, 2013 10:18 PM
To: Hosnieh Rafiee
Cc
whether or not you find it useful.
Thanks,
Best,
Hosnieh
Filename:draft-rafiee-6man-ra-privacy
Revision:00
Title: Router Advertisement based privacy extension in IPv6
autoconfiguration
Creation date: 2013-05-02
Group: Individual Submission
Number of pages: 6
URL
SSAS
algorithm focus more on security and then focus on privacy.
Best,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
ddress. -- and
if you don't think so, please explain your attack vector.
This is what I am trying to tell you. The association of IP addresses to
the information obtained from other layers is important and might put
privacy at risk and not just hiding the "pattern" of your network.
on there, without having something in between that does not have
wide usage.
I hope you and others who have the same questions receive the response.
Best,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
time. In
today's environment privacy has come to the fore front and the parameters
that were used to define privacy before have changed greatly. It is a much
bigger issue and getting bigger every day.
Hosnieh
-Original Message-
From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fg...@si6networks.com]
Se
not make sense.
> Can you define the "privacy" you don't think it has any effect on?
I have already answered this by what I said in my prior sentence.
Best,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ip
have any effect on privacy and
everything related to the router prefix.
>We generally find it more useful to avoid trying to boil the ocean.
We are not boiling the ocean bucket by bucket as you seem to think. What we are
doing
ill give a possible way of
changing the lifetime based on the network policy so that the whole draft
does not focus on something that does not really solve the privacy issue.
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@
On 04/27/2013 04:20 PM, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote:
> I do not think repeating what I explained before will be of much help. I
> never received any responses from my last discussions with Fernando so I
am
> not going to continue that discourse.
>FWIW, I responded to your messages. Howe
is really
related to the network policy and has nothing to do to with standards but Is
more a deployment issue. Currently some network administrators themselves
consider this issue so there is no need to tell them how to do this.
Best,
Hosnieh
-Original Message-
From: SM [mailto:s
t of the privacy concerns" in
>the two sections above.
>Agreed.
I mentioned this comment in the first versions of this draft, but nobody
seemed to agree with me at that time so I stopped with the dialogue.
Hosnieh
. I
have to prove how secure it is including improving the RPKI section. This is
the next plan.
Thanks,
Hosnieh
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of SM
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2013 12:47 AM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: draft-rafiee-6man
ty
to prove my case.
I want to thank everyone for their contributions on this topic and I hope
that you will bear with me and we can resume after I know something
definite.
Thanks again,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing
ably try to write another draft and improve that document too while at
the same time as I am improving SSAS with the best design of RPKI (I will do
that after my trip :-) so give me more time...).
Thanks,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 wo
d, would contain
this public key. This is why, in this case, the keys' security is very
important.
Thanks,
Hosnieh
-Original Message-
From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.ar...@piuha.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 10:56 PM
To: Hosnieh Rafiee
Cc: 'Jari Arkko'; 'Santosh
ry to break the
RSA. I do not agree with what Christian posed about being able to easily
break it mathematically in a few seconds and I will work on proving him
wrong.
Hosnieh
-Original Message-
From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.ar...@piuha.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 9:19 PM
To: Chri
prove him wrong. About other algorithms, CGA can use them as well
so you cannot compare the computational times based on the use of those
algorithms.
Hosnieh
From: Christian Huitema [mailto:huit...@microsoft.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2013 8:34 PM
To: Hosnieh Rafiee; ipv6@ietf.org; s
second byte must not be higher than the
size of public key minus 6.
- How many days does it take to break SSAS? I ask this because for
privacy I consider changing the key pairs and creating a new IP address in a
certain time frame.
Hosnieh
From: Christian Huitema [mailto:huit
Thanks Christian. You answered my question. This is what I wanted to know
about security when directly using keys or using in the way CGA does. Both
are difficult but the CGA way is relatively easier than cracking the RSA
keys.
Hosnieh
From: Christian Huitema [mailto:huit...@microsoft.com
c key as a part of
IP address.
Thanks again Christian.
Hosnieh
From: Christian Huitema [mailto:huit...@microsoft.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 16, 2013 7:30 PM
To: Hosnieh Rafiee; ipv6@ietf.org; s...@ietf.org
Cc: 'Erik Nordmark'; alexandru.petre...@gmail.com; 'Ray Hunter'; Michae
rithm is used to generate these
keys and sign the message. If you or anyone else thinks otherwise, please
contribute to this discussion and share your opinions. I am just comparing
the security aspects of SSAS, the time efficient algorithm, to those of CGA.
Thank you,
Hosnieh
From: C
same security level as when using CGA.
I have also included the security group in this email so that they can also
give me any comments that they might have.
Thank you,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@iet
We are at the last table in the corner. If anybody interested join us :-)
From: Hosnieh Rafiee [mailto:i...@rozanak.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 3:27 PM
To: ipv6@ietf.org; v6...@ietf.org
Subject: ND security, meeting at 12:15 in front of Grand Sierra D
I will give a short, informal
the Grand Sierra D (IETF lounge) at 12:15.
Thanks
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
ty. I
will do this tomorrow (Tuesday) at 12:15 in Grand Sierra D (IETF lounge) and
then formally on Friday, in the 6man session, if time permits as I am an "if
time permits" person.
Thank you,
Hosnieh
Filename:draft-rafiee-6man-ssas
Revision:03
Title:
That is fine. Thanks.
From: Nalini Elkins [mailto:nalini.elk...@insidethestack.com]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 2:02 PM
To: Hosnieh Rafiee; ipv6@ietf.org; 'Alexandru Petrescu'; 'Michael Richardson';
'Ray Hunter'; 'Fernando Gont'
Subject: Re: ND secu
Sorry, I meant Tuesday (12 March). I got confused with the time and date…
Thanks,
Hosnieh
From: Hosnieh Rafiee [mailto:i...@rozanak.com]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 3:06 AM
To: 'Nalini Elkins'; 'ipv6@ietf.org'; 'Alexandru Petrescu'; 'Michael
Ri
That is great. What about Thursday? What time is the best for you?
Hosnieh
From: Nalini Elkins [mailto:nalini.elk...@insidethestack.com]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 2:51 AM
To: Hosnieh Rafiee; ipv6@ietf.org; 'Alexandru Petrescu'; Michael Richardson;
Karl Auer; Ray Hunter; Fer
le
at: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-rafiee-6man-ssas-02.txt
Thanks,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
-intarea-cga-tsig-02
> this is the document that I read: draft-rafiee-6man-ssas-01.txt
The second version is available and I am working on third version which will
contain many revisions.
Thanks,
Hosnieh
-Original Message-
From: m...@sandelman.ca [mailto:m...@sandelman.ca] On Behalf
between the current mechanisms.
It appears that my draft has not been added to those of the 6man drafts, at
least I can't find it and it is also missing from the PDF agenda, while all
other drafts are listed at your link:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/86/agenda.html.
Thank you,
Ho
lso include it in my draft.
Thank you,
Hosnieh
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark
Smith
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 9:18 PM
To: Michael Richardson; Karl Auer
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: 6MAN Agenda for IETF86
Hi,
- Ori
privacy is emphasized.
It seems that I have to upload the latest version of my draft to a website
where others can read it.
Thank you,
Hosnieh
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Michael Richardson
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 7:
lab we are currently working on devising possible attacks against
IPv6 networks in order to find ways of preventing them. We hope to be able
to provide the necessary tools to provide the security necessary to use
against these many different types of attack.
Thank you,
Hosnieh
-Original
? I have not seen any
discussions about them. Maybe I missed it. If it is in another WG, would you
please tell me which one?
Thanks,
Hosnieh
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Alexandru Petrescu
Sent: Dienstag, 5. März 2013 14:40
To
it, if you have any comments I would appreciate your input
so that I can add them to this latest draft.
Thanks,
Hosnieh
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Nalini Elkins
Sent: Dienstag, 5. März 2013 14:33
To: Karl Auer; ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re
missed, I would
appreciate an explanation of what they are.
What would actually be fair in assigning time slots would be to give
something like 10 minutes to all active drafts on the list so that everyone
could count on an opportunity to discuss their drafts.
If I am wrong please tell me.
Tha
mins
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/maillist.html
Thank you,
Hosnieh
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bob
Hinden
Sent: Dienstag, 5. März 2013 01:03
To: IPv6 List
Cc: Bob Hinden
Subject: 6MAN Agenda for IETF86
to show all about
the differences of this approach with CGA and the application of it.
Thank you,
Hosnieh
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bob
Hinden
Sent: Dienstag, 5. März 2013 01:03
To: IPv6 List
Cc: Bob Hinden
Subject: 6MAN
t SSAS: the purpose of this draft is to discuss the means of combining
or integrating privacy (layer 3) and security.
Thank you,
Hosnieh
-Original Message-
From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fg...@si6networks.com]
Sent: Montag, 4. Februar 2013 07:53
To: Hosnieh Rafiee
Cc: 'Karl Auer'; ipv6
he section describing trust anchors. About successful
attacks, in practice, it is not like theoretical proofs; the probability is
very low. I obtained that mathematical proof by finding the expected value
for 2 days, 10 days, and also 20 days... .
>5. Is that an IAN consideration?
It
-01>
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rafiee-6man-ssas-01
Thank you,
Hosnieh
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
Dear all,
I have considered your comments and updated our draft rfc accordingly. Feel
free to add further comments.
Thank you,
Hosnieh
Filename:draft-rafiee-6man-ssas
Revision:01
Title: A Simple Secure Addressing Generation Scheme for IPv6
AutoConfiguration (SSAS
1 - 100 of 114 matches
Mail list logo
