4 ms·
Here's a proposed algorithm for making privacy addresses more manageable: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7217 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7217 Essentially, t
by p1mrx 12y ago
Here's a proposed algorithm for making privacy addresses more manageable:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7217 http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7217
Essentially, the suffix is hash(secret | prefix), so your address is stable on a given network, but changes as you roam between networks.
- cm2187 12y agoAs I mentioned above, this misses the point. All you are getting is that instead of having a unique identifier (your MAC) you have 4 or 5 (the number of networks you roam between within a day). This will be trivial to defeat with a browser cookie. The identifier are still static which means that it only takes one observation to establish a permanent link between these IPs.
- nly 12y agoA small domain encryption scheme, rather than a hash, would make more sense... that way there'd be no collisions. SDE isn't that much harder to put together in hardware.
- p1mrx 12y agoThe subnet space is 64 bits long. Collisions between pseudo-random values only become likely when you have billions of nodes, so it's not worth the effort to preemptively avoid them. This would also require all nodes to implement the same algorithm, which means it's not incrementally deployable. Edit: The actual RFC7217 algorithm contains a DAD_Counter field in the hash input. In the event of a collision, the counter increments, generating a new address.