nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv4 address length technical design
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2012 12:49:03 -0700
On Oct 4, 2012, at 11:19 AM, Tony Finch <dot () dotat at> wrote:
Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:Once host identifiers are no longer dependent on or related to topology, there's no reason a reasonable fixed-length cannot suffice.Host identities should be cryptographic hashes of public keys, so you have to support algorithm agility, which probably implies variable length.
No, they really shouldn't, but I understand why some security zealots think that's a good idea. Owen
Current thread:
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design, (continued)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design John Levine (Oct 05)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Barry Shein (Oct 05)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Fred Baker (fred) (Oct 05)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Cutler James R (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design William Herrin (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Cutler James R (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design William Herrin (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Owen DeLong (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design George Herbert (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Tony Finch (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Owen DeLong (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Barry Shein (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Cutler James R (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design George Herbert (Oct 03)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 04)
- Re: IPv4 address length technical design Michael Thomas (Oct 05)