IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6lo] Strength of the 64 bits token in AP-ND

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 30 January 2018 16:43 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F76F12DA4E for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 08:43:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1ejo6h4I_Y8q for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 08:43:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9253912EC6A for <6lo@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 08:42:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [209.87.249.21]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EF1820095; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 11:48:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from obiwan.sandelman.ca (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9139B80C6E; Tue, 30 Jan 2018 11:42:45 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
cc: "6lo@ietf.org" <6lo@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <0a085ad4ea6d4a119a34c9108db42a0f@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
References: <0a085ad4ea6d4a119a34c9108db42a0f@XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7-RC3; GNU Emacs 24.5.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 11:42:45 -0500
Message-ID: <4653.1517330565@obiwan.sandelman.ca>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/XP8zT7hLiW-JgeCj-HKTg_SNy-U>
Subject: Re: [6lo] Strength of the 64 bits token in AP-ND
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 16:43:50 -0000

Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> wrote:
    > - using the whole 256 bits out of the SHA hash, the size of DAR and
    > DAC messages and the ARO option would be impacted. We'd have to rework
    > the backward compatibility with 6LoWPAN ND, ensure that the 6LR / 6LBR
    > supports this spec before using a larger token, and use a larger field
    > when the network is not backlevel

I believe that you have the only deployed code that makes use of this, so I
think that there are limited issues with backward compatibility.

    > - RFC 3972 has a trick whereby the cost of generating a new CGA
    > depends exponentially on a security parameter Sec, both for the

I believe that this discussion would benefit from looking at some of the work
of hosnieh.rafiee@huawei.com:
   https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-rafiee-rfc3972-bis-00.txt
   https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=rafiee&sort=&rfcs=on&activedrafts=on&olddrafts=on
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email