Re: default-iids: dropping requirement 1 in Section 3

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Lorenzo,

On 05/23/2016 11:41 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 8:59 PM, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     > No, the root of this whole problem is embedding a *stable* layer-2 ID in
>     > a layer-3 field.
> 
>     You're wrong. I've provided references that explain why, and Brian has
>     provided examples. There's not much I can do other than that.
> 
> 
> Instead of telling me I'm wrong, I would suggest convincing the WG that
> I'm wrong, because if you do, it doesn't matter what I think. 

The fact that your scheme wastes 18 bits of entropy, and requires that
only a single layer-3 protocol is used, and only a single IPv6 prefix is
employed (so that its exploitation for correlation does not become
obvious) shows that the scheme is flawed, and that the scheme itself is
what allows for correlation.

My apologies for my writing style. My goal is not to prove you wrong.
But rather than there's a reason for not wanting the layer-2 id in the
IPv6 address.


-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492