IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [HAM-AG] [IPv6] Request for feedback: draft-evan-amateur-radio-ipv6

Evan Pratten <ewpratten@gmail.com> Thu, 16 February 2023 00:13 UTC

Return-Path: <ewpratten@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ham-ag@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ham-ag@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 443C9C169523; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 16:13:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.095
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.095 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vBx6OgsKnzYE; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 16:13:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ej1-x636.google.com (mail-ej1-x636.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::636]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4F83C136133; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 16:13:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ej1-x636.google.com with SMTP id qw12so1252120ejc.2; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 16:13:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=XJy4Qo+u7Eczh6xUYd0BljocHlB3CLF8yIOAz8zxnPY=; b=JaXOMcsRs69h8wOOnnawQOHXYD92bEH3N1lc+CaO5svEHZ1jjjvEi72woKPjbHs+MT n6DPzeriRgexjeqW2WKZfPW+z0ihtx2P+yHsB1QMdTP5tVgtBefcs0olIspII6S2AEsK 3fV3lk0XW22gI2bkhvADrCjQ/sgHhx270zMH3NKRoFQSpv6eLlg7CHYz54Z+38/2HJ+y lu+1gUXp/EyOc0kbKJj16dMjTgk+R1Cj7cTV68IZH+tAztHkqzT4iyN1mLX21Zkm/kg9 ELwEMzqfxtqxPJnDP0+C+NQMdgvLU5lhhwe1C1zt/bGaBOmLzIOuLwMXNsfbS/hAMnfk MyCA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=XJy4Qo+u7Eczh6xUYd0BljocHlB3CLF8yIOAz8zxnPY=; b=F/TL9t6gtypo7SDxcXUclZHOQnoVXh9Q2vX9NXJYhAR6UtwCP4MZ6a6eqifG5lgng2 WgkGCbRl25Gd/glxeahWcmTsZ1CHhZjyEWfhx71fKKJbzBbG0AqOTudaSYQ/QwPPsoVw NnrcONOvYThhPzAkL+PNhvVS6jLNp9Nbk8kvVEhmNVqcy/VXZsPDvfVVekDgyIItsz0Q 0op1nRUGxbDdUx/J9RvPtDuDVGa/OB7C+J/uM2xSCiQrqBq1FZCgVvKUKtSa8lTvx2oj IFjIuyE50evz47YUS66+NbT+Xjk65fPWdCcPPSqMDH6JZwHeSMWnQRGlwnJhugYrKW35 fxVw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AO0yUKV/+L3U2JpSSD+MNwZBYqE9RtAkJdiJbHsCyCjXfWpBfDoKgxJf EjPopC7HOgyI+6PpoUiBAPJ7rpimjGWuKTWLpaY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AK7set8FLmmOgRyFrxLMTP8YpgREE9BeF27Rg2R1bk6bZw18Ue8wPNwCqYZuCG4vp/5yO2pSi88dNn8aBC+Qd0lco5s=
X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:2cd2:b0:8b1:2cdb:b8e4 with SMTP id hg18-20020a1709072cd200b008b12cdbb8e4mr1909667ejc.8.1676506424082; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 16:13:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAD=s3w5UUgiNC=SJxigAj7TS_QHDfk+KBiWq846rVcqmRxxtLQ@mail.gmail.com> <5420a784-0c57-e40f-3e45-dd3bd9c393ea@gmail.com> <CAF4+nEGh3J0wO7+9jcHoQErcW8=hXD+sh9DLJ7QWYUoBsmLAQg@mail.gmail.com> <CAD=s3w6NFz4BA9_sdPukZQFQnS2h9yjP0ncYifX0HedOn_ZVPA@mail.gmail.com> <CAF4+nEGGtRh20503VpCPjT2VdsaoDEbcfqSTumExHZEef2Jvvg@mail.gmail.com> <CACcvr=kc6kqPpdve8VWX5RWydtvjJkmEk+ykBvM6=SrUSVXWYQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CACcvr=kc6kqPpdve8VWX5RWydtvjJkmEk+ykBvM6=SrUSVXWYQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Evan Pratten <ewpratten@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 19:13:32 -0500
Message-ID: <CAD=s3w4Oa9NKK-6h-YEr9OSHy_=C6JBsauWSxkrw-=oS1O=EMA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nick Harper <nharper@nharper.org>
Cc: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, IPv6 <ipv6@ietf.org>, ham-ag@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ham-ag/U8P_pOF-y1kSWQS7wDIh1KQrgKQ>
Subject: Re: [HAM-AG] [IPv6] Request for feedback: draft-evan-amateur-radio-ipv6
X-BeenThere: ham-ag@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: HAM Radio Operators Affiliate Group <ham-ag.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ham-ag>, <mailto:ham-ag-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ham-ag/>
List-Post: <mailto:ham-ag@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ham-ag-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ham-ag>, <mailto:ham-ag-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2023 00:13:49 -0000

I have personally held temporary callsigns longer than 7 characters,
which is why I wanted to handle that.

Using a more space efficient encoding scheme is an interesting idea.
Do you know if there is a maximum length on temporary callsigns by
chance?

I'll think about doing away with the hash in favor of space-efficient encoding.

On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 7:10 PM Nick Harper <nharper@nharper.org> wrote:
>
> Why hash the callsign at all?
>
> Article 19 of ITU's Radio Regulations specifies the format of callsigns, and they are at most 7 characters long. The ASCII representation of the callsign could be used to generate 7 bytes (56 bits) to use in the address without needing any hashing. For the exception in 19.68A (on special occasions, for temporary use, callsigns could be longer than 7 characters), a 6-bit encoding scheme could be devised so that alphanumeric callsigns up to 10 characters long could be encoded in 60 bits.
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 3:28 PM Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 3:03 PM Evan Pratten <ewpratten@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 2:58 PM Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > I'm not sure the hash even needs to be cryptographic.
>> >
>> > Agreed. I would call a cryptographic hash *undesierable*. Why waste
>> > processing power hiding the callsign when you have to ID yourself
>> > anyways?
>> >
>> > I am admittedly far from an expert on hashing algorithms. Donald, do
>> > you have any suggestions that fit the properties you outlined by
>> > chance?
>>
>> Indeed, I would suggest using FNV-64 truncated to the top 60 bits, See
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eastlake-fnv/
>>
>> Here is an article on using FNV-32 for IPv6 flow label
>> https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/2292/13240/flowhashRep.pdf
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Donald
>> =============================
>>  Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
>>  2386 Panoramic Circle, Apopka, FL 32703 USA
>>  d3e3e3@gmail.com
>>
>> --
>> HAM-AG mailing list
>> HAM-AG@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ham-ag

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email