In your previous mail you wrote:
=> It would be good if yu could point out
a link perhaps to help me understand the reasons.
=> there are tons of mails in the archive of this list about that.
If breaking the key is a concern you can do
things to fix that (e.g. like adding x below).
=> I agree but...
> If we want to make it
> more sophisticated then we can add another number
> to the hash input (e.g P1 || P2 || x).
> Where x can be something specific to this flow.
>
> => so why not just x (:-)...
=> Well because not all applications have that
luxury of knowing an 'x' beforehand.
Also you would have to define for each application
what 'x' means. Or define some behaviour in the
IPv6 stack based on some shared secret, which again
is not always available.
=> I still don't understand what is the difference between
x and hash(P1 || P2 || x) where x can be something specific
to this flow.
Regards
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PS: I can read between the lines that an end-to-end usage of
the flow label is proposed. IMHO this is only a waste of bits,
the flow label is in the header in order to be available to
intermediate nodes. For end-to-end options, a destination header
fits better.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
