>To my understanding, rfc4941 meant to use CGA exactky as defined in rfc 3972.
>The modified CGA algorithm in draft-rafiee-6man-ra-privacy has nothing to do with CGA. >How are u going to do with the CGA parameter? There is no CGA option to add to the ICMP messages. Using a part of CGA algorithm for IID generation (that I called it modified CGA is because I do not use public private key and removed the condition checking for security level. My purpose is not security here as I explained in the draft) is just for the purpose of randomization in the absence of stable storage. It provides better randomization than trying to use some random numbers as explained in section 3.2.2 RFC 4941. >There is no meaning in send modifier in CGA parameter then. >If modifier is meant to be kept to the IP address owner, modifier could be viewed as secret, >as defined in draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses. Not exactly. I am not planning to have any correlation between my modifier and IID as "stable address draft" wants to have. It is because, in my opinion, there is no reason for it so that others can guess my next IID values by having my secret or re-generate it. It is because that approach cannot either help to increase my security like what real CGA does to some extent nor can help to increase my privacy. The purpose of ra-privacy draft is first having more control on IID lifetime. Second, to increase the randomization of IID. Thanks for your comments, Hosnieh
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
