On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 3:16 PM, grarpamp <[email protected]> wrote: > What is use case of 95 bit choice?
Unique local IPv6 prefix is 7 bit, and 95 bit for the hash leaves 26 extra bits in IPv6 to avoid issues with any other mapping — looks about right to me. Also, base-32 addresses are optimal with multiple-of-5 bit counts. > Short hashes unavailable, so it would be truncation, which made > from a secure hash probably better than junk short hash anyway. Sure, I had some truncation method in mind, or even plain truncation like Tor does (but — didn't see any second-preimage attack resistance analysis of plain SHA-1 80-bit truncation in Tor specs). > I had also thought I2P could generate keys, but reject putting > into operation those that fall outside of some desired mask > range, say only use first 80 bit of 256 space. That's computationally infeasible (essentially what Bitcoin relies on). -- Maxim Kammerer Liberté Linux: http://dee.su/liberte _______________________________________________ tor-talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
