IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Discussion of draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Tue, 21 July 2015 18:05 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87A291A8935 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:05:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 aZ2nIbo8bZqy for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22f.google.com (mail-wi0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 126131A888F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:05:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibxm9 with SMTP id xm9so129796552wib.0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=DOjsl1gxv6Xm1aBCD05cq/jgVVkZF/3W6q6klhQZt34=; b=qR9Vs5oCaNy3WGuto74c6RdCAJor3q9sFfuVIdcpfBXkzwsC0TvnSDRk9b1TyRUQS6 R0LQuFBIv63mIvu4/TGYZZezVKROVLhLjeHQb0+0RuhAQkfL6tnIToTw093jpQrT4Ar5 /zhqDaLHK+dSxb37NR+lg5J27Ls7XwHaPiW6d5u9MTq5UEkFIeqsWxkVxxzRZqkoptEI 0ggw5w44YZnszeEc8BQrk++Iq8jSFhSoLwR0IjJ3DjP/pp8tX7SVUvCItueaVIuduLcf MRiNkvqRKWNWrpv0e6JlWPFtWXQrsFE4Hs4l5KlmPc/nH3rUXoweTKnVAu0CvJQDONxs wyIA==
X-Received: by 10.194.109.97 with SMTP id hr1mr68027645wjb.95.1437501916744; Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:67c:370:136:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2001:67c:370:136:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s5sm17995299wik.2.2015.07.21.11.05.15 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 21 Jul 2015 11:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <55AE89DE.60701@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 06:05:18 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
References: <6153A91F-7E9A-4579-BA06-72964568D343@cisco.com> <55AE54D3.7070502@gmail.com> <55AE5D01.5090309@gmail.com> <55AE71F7.8000107@gmail.com> <20150721162835.26A9F338B4ED@rock.dv.isc.org> <55AE742E.9040301@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <55AE742E.9040301@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/WMUoAQpeGd32lmfa7E4tQc-EXzg>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Discussion of draft-ietf-v6ops-ula-usage-recommendations
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 18:05:19 -0000

On 22/07/2015 04:32, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

...
> Now I am saying: generate ULA properly, make it truly random.  But how?

This is not the place to debate the philosophical question whether the
phrase "truly random" has any meaning. The (im)probability of collisions is
thoroughly covered in RFC 4193, section 3.2.3.

I would advise using something better than rand(); you can even read
RFC 4086, but really this is all very old news.

   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email