nanog mailing list archives
Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space
From: Saku Ytti <saku () ytti fi>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2012 10:28:41 +0300
On (2012-07-19 10:25 +1000), Mark Andrews wrote:
The point of the algorithm was to have something which would do a reasonable job in a CPE router without a hardware source of randomness.
In that context it very much makes sense.
It is a "SAMPLE" routinue. It is not "YOU MUST DO IT THIS WAY OR ELSE". Anything that meets the requirements of RFC 4086 is fine. /dev/random on by laptop meets the requirements of RFC 4086. I
Good to know, earlier in this thread, when fully 40b random (method I've been also using, which I've always thought to be superior to RFC) was suggested, it was met with cold shoulder 'does not follow RFC4086 ... do not use'. I guess I'll keep on using my 40b random instead of 'exactly RFC', and keep verifiability in wish-list. -- ++ytti
Current thread:
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space, (continued)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Karl Auer (Jul 18)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Saku Ytti (Jul 19)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Mark Andrews (Jul 19)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Cameron Byrne (Jul 19)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space valdis . kletnieks (Jul 19)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Stephen Sprunk (Jul 19)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Jimmy Hess (Jul 19)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Karl Auer (Jul 19)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Stephen Sprunk (Jul 19)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Mark Andrews (Jul 18)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Saku Ytti (Jul 19)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Stephen Sprunk (Jul 19)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space valdis . kletnieks (Jul 19)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Saku Ytti (Jul 19)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Randy Bush (Jul 15)
- Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space Jimmy Hess (Jul 15)
- Re: Re: using "reserved" IPv6 space valdis . kletnieks (Jul 15)