IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Next step(s) for draft-ietf-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses -> abandon work? / IA_NA applicability

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 15 April 2015 01:51 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 858A91B2BE2 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 18:51:17 -0700 (PDT)
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, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 sXc1iHyfc3fS for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 18:51:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 987341B2BD3 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 18:51:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-04.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35E08DA01AB; Wed, 15 Apr 2015 01:51:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.0.20.107] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-04.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 18:51:14 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <552D6343.9050404@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 21:51:03 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <CF0CC1A9-8455-41DD-84DD-E0E05895C912@nominum.com>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1CA32071@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <CAKD1Yr2Ztzoys+xKBzsEHU5hqJmfGpn-GeWPEqNCHRuWOTgsJQ@mail.gmail.com> <55250911.30100@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr0ojVmk-ctUO313zvAx01P=B-A2zVuwDm73+dLgVwDLOw@mail.gmail.com> <55250DF2.8050001@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr33wFmjjqjYu8YEpqYvnn=kh9oJhe1YAC7UEzacQFBaWg@mail.gmail.com> <55251EFA.4000204@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr0XK-DQkcJKwTYmiWzCzZs4pubCme9rAgoZ_ig-P5MgsQ@mail.gmail.com> <55253F14.6000706@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr0Q2634Rfw0_9NiU+-S_yfD2RwPs7uPWAbTuOADyx8bHg@mail.gmail.com> <5526B5F9.9090707@si6networks.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1CA499A7@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <5526D45A.9020701@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr2g9sc8Y3URBMt=yNkD61-iG37rpNc5ZXJHjLfghD3KJA@mail.gmail.com> <5527FA77.5070301@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr3M0gbbbE6a=DfT1SW7jeXoHX1EQMbDagtF-+n13sAQ0w@mail.gmail.com> <552C679E.4020305@si6networks.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1CA66028@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <552D6343.9050404@si6networks.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/_JyfF49BvPhTCXphrzzoc7LVO7k>
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Next step(s) for draft-ietf-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses -> abandon work? / IA_NA applicability
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 01:51:17 -0000

On Apr 14, 2015, at 2:58 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
> Mine is this: the subnet address space is so large that the problem is
> essentially a birthday paradox.

That assumes a random distribution.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email