Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <[email protected]> wrote: > - using the whole 256 bits out of the SHA hash, the size of DAR and > DAC messages and the ARO option would be impacted. We'd have to rework > the backward compatibility with 6LoWPAN ND, ensure that the 6LR / 6LBR > supports this spec before using a larger token, and use a larger field > when the network is not backlevel
I believe that you have the only deployed code that makes use of this, so I
think that there are limited issues with backward compatibility.
> - RFC 3972 has a trick whereby the cost of generating a new CGA
> depends exponentially on a security parameter Sec, both for the
I believe that this discussion would benefit from looking at some of the work
of [email protected]:
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-rafiee-rfc3972-bis-00.txt
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=rafiee&sort=&rfcs=on&activedrafts=on&olddrafts=on
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
