Re[2]: national security

Dear Anthony,
RFC 2373 permits 6 plans. The best would be to organize them by purpose. 
Not them all to do the same thing. Here we talk about national security not 
about intellectual elegance.
When you are at war, you want your network to continue operating, not to 
depend on a numeration optimisation by your ennemy. If, due to that, you 
must lose some fancy facilities you probably find that acceptable. To 
evaluate what you lose is the purpose of my question, to permit 
governements to decide what they want - not to be imposed by the nsicanntiab.
I am sure that many security officers or generals would feel unatease if 
they known their HQ IPv6 address can be just one unknown bit different from 
the IPv6 address of a ennemy computer. Makes security very complex. What 
they want is an address mask, if possible manual, telling them where they 
are and where the call comes from. This is also the need of commercial 
international sites, who want to indentify the country of origin to speak 
in the proper language. As well as VOiP users.
And please do not tell me that this is a breach on the calling party's 
privacy. The breach is the call by nature.
jfc







At 14:52 28/11/03, Anthony G. Atkielski wrote:
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
> Jari Arkko writes:
>
> > However, I do not believe these proposals consume any
> > more address space than, say, manual or EUI-64
> > based address assignment.
>
> In order to use the full potential address space, you must devise a
> scheme that allocates every single combination of bits.  The simplest
> scheme of this kind is sequential allocation of addresses.
>
> > There's still just one address consumed per
> > node.
>
> It's not the number consumed; it's the number excluded from availability
> by the encoding of information into the address field.  You might easily
> waste 99% of the address space in this way.
>
> > Perhaps you were thinking that the address contains a MAC field?
>
> No.  I'm thinking that the address field is being divided into zones,
> thus wasting a tremendous amount of space.
>
> A 128-bit field contains 2^128 addresses.  If you divide that into two
> 64-bit fields, you may get as few as 2^64*2 addresses; that's 18
> million trillion times smaller than the 128-bit field.