Hi Alex, Thanks for your feedback.
> On 29 May 2018, at 13:13, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petre...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Why the history value is precisely 64bit long? I suggest it to be variable > length. > I presume you’re talking about the history value for temporary address generation? If so, you’re going to have to take that up with the authors of RFC4941 because that is what is specified in the standard. > another point is the following: > > >> >> Code was also developed to attempt to brute force log entries, and it >> was noted that on the same PC used for the testing above (single CPU >> PC with an Intel Core i7 running at 2.8GHz) attempting to brute force >> a single log entry would be computationally infeasible (approximately >> 22,313,257 years required). To decrypt the entire log would require >> this same amount of time for each individual log entry. >> > > > This part is interesting. I would rather conclude the paragraph with saying > that the number of years required may be dramatically reduced by improving > the algorithmic method to take advantage of local core multiplicity, near > range IoT computing power availability and Internet-scale computing. > > Of course, you’re quite right. I haven’t coded professionally in years, nor is the hardware at my disposal particularly powerful, nor did I make any particular effort to optimise the code. The point I was trying to make, however, was that searching for a specific log entry is computationally relatively easy whereas extracting all records is computationally significantly more difficult. I will add this comment to a list of amendments which I will make in the next draft. Regards, daveor _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
