IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] FW: RFC3315 question

Markus Stenberg <mstenber@cisco.com> Sat, 17 February 2007 23:11 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HIYig-0003QH-IM; Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:11:54 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HIYie-0003MI-PG for dhcwg@ietf.org; Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:11:52 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HIYid-000202-Fo for dhcwg@ietf.org; Sat, 17 Feb 2007 18:11:52 -0500
Received: from sj-dkim-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.79]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 17 Feb 2007 15:11:52 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,185,1170662400"; d="scan'208"; a="390203111:sNHT45657372"
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-5.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l1HNBo6O008901; Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:11:50 -0800
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l1HNBonF017440; Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:11:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com ([171.70.151.174]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:11:50 -0800
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([10.70.237.16]) by xfe-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 17 Feb 2007 15:11:49 -0800
In-Reply-To: <53EB64D1-7093-4C62-B063-BCF4571874D4@nominum.com>
References: <8E296595B6471A4689555D5D725EBB2103467C84@xmb-rtp-20a.amer.cisco.com> <53EB64D1-7093-4C62-B063-BCF4571874D4@nominum.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; delsp="yes"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <1A674D40-4BB6-4533-A273-C067B7DF21AD@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Markus Stenberg <mstenber@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] FW: RFC3315 question
Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 08:11:38 +0900
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Feb 2007 23:11:49.0995 (UTC) FILETIME=[00F03BB0:01C752E9]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=813; t=1171753911; x=1172617911; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim5002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=mstenber@cisco.com; z=From:=20Markus=20Stenberg=20<mstenber@cisco.com> |Subject:=20Re=3A=20[dhcwg]=20FW=3A=20RFC3315=20question |Sender:=20; bh=ZperIcVxXrs3NcsivQxS4H/VEWnutfL18auze+mky3s=; b=iCxd2zoRLI6ZVwnPK7NlLeWBCmCS2PbDfQKqOFidSBQw5LFXUKAojcA6UbnzxDXeIOU1hAhG BS8ZzTY35n4Wmr1PZ+n7BR6qmAyZ2a+Bpx9l2121Nnj+wjJI9ULkjCw2;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-5; header.From=mstenber@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim5002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>, "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms@cisco.com>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org

On 18.2.2007, at 7.34, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> Just to get this idea out, how does one go about getting a new
>> DUID type defined? In particular, it might be useful to define
>> a new DUID type that includes a client's public key such as
>> required by RFC3972. The actual format of the DUID type is for
>> further study, e.g., in addition to the public key it might be
>> desireable to include a link-layer address, a timestamp, etc.
> How big is this key going to be?   I don't think a 1k identifier is  
> a good idea.

Well, 1024bit public key would be 128 bytes for example, which is  
still well within pain threshold of the IPv6 minimum UDP packet  
size.. 2048 bit one would be 'safe' and 256 bytes, and ECC keys would  
be even shorter (but patent encumbered). (think 200-ish bits)

-Markus


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email