On 05/25/2013 12:19 AM, Dave Thaler wrote:
> I'd also like to see CGAs (3972) added to this analysis.  It seems to me 
> they're
> the existing standards-track "random-per-network" addresses.  So all of the
> "random-per-network" statements would seem apply equally to the existing RFC.
> 
> This draft references that RFC but does not contain any discussion on the
> relative use cases.  I.e., if I already use CGAs for my "random-per-network"
> solution, is there any benefit in this draft?
> 
> What problem is this solving that wasn't already solved by that existing 
> Proposed Standard RFC?

I could give you multiple reasons for
draft-ietf-6manstable-privacy-addresses:

* The whole point of CGAs is validating the ownership of an IPv6
address. If you're going to use CGAs for that, that's overkill
(bothering with a public key, etc., etc.)

* CGAs are more complex and difficult to undestand. OTOH, if one
understands RFC1948 or how a hash function works, understanding
draf-tietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses is straightforward.

* CGAs are far more expensive than
draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses. You compute at least two
hashes, where in stable privacy you need only one.

* CGAs require a specific hash algorithm (SHA-1), since they neey other
to be able to verify the CGA. We give implementations to employ the
algorithm they feel is more appropriate (based on their specific tradeoffs).

* CGAs are IPR encumbered. draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses are not.

* CGAs cannot be used in conjunction with RFC4941.


To be honest, the argument of "using CGAs instead of stable privacy"
sounds to me pretty much like "you don't need a hammer, because you can
use pliers to knock the nail".

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [email protected] || [email protected]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1



--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email protected]
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to