On 14/07/2017 08:58, Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi Toerless,
>
>
> On 7/6/17 9:09 AM, Toerless Eckert wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 06, 2017 at 04:34:05PM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> It used to be, but the recommendation today is a pseudo-random
>>> value (RFC7217). In any case it's a software choice.
>> brand new recommendations do not equate to be expected
>> standard practice in products. Would be very good to have
>> folks with practical insight into various products to
>> provide more information.
> On this point, I think it's quite likely that we will see a good number
> of devices fielded that will do a lousy job of PRNG, and so it would be
> inadvisable for them to implement RFC7217, lest they test their DAD code
> in ways not really intended. I'm not thinking about iPhones here, but
> energy harvesting devices like some light switches, and a bunch of,
> well,... crap.
>
> The question is whether you should design for these devices. IMHO "no"
> is a perfectly valid answer, but I'm still a bit skeptical about the
> value of 7217 for these class of devices in any event.
That may be true, but for BRSKI as such, the only hard requirement is
an address that is unique on a given link, which is a requirement anyway.
IPIP is more of an issue for the node providing the proxy, which is
hopefully a bit upscale from a light switch.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Anima mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
