> -----Original Message----- > From: Ammar Salih [mailto:ammar.sa...@auis.edu.iq]
> But I'm suggesting to you that most people in the IETF consider that to be > a "feature," not a "bug." If you wanted to take a consensus within the > IETF, I would bet that most would not want to facilitate the efforts of a > couple of well-known regimes today, to isolate their citizens from the > Internet. If, with today's protocols, these efforts are less than 100 > percent effective, I'm suggesting most people would consider that to be a > "good thing." It's not about supporting dictatorial regimes in isolating their citizens from the internet, It's about implementing regulations, for example, certain regions does not allow VoIP calls over GSM/GPRS network. And it's not only filtering and restrictions, location-based Bandwidth Management could mean (for the sake of example) you assign Bandwidth based on area population rather than router's uplink. Many applications will be supporting the feature differently (like http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6442 ), then one day it will be much easier to unify them and have the feature in the IP header. > Since you mention IP addresses, we have "privacy addresses" in IPv6 for > exactly this reason. Many feel that disclosing even something as seemingly > innocuous as your real MAC address, in IPv6 SLAAC, could be problematic, so > it is no longer mandatory to do so. I don't see why "privacy addresses" is mentioned here, I am 100% with users privacy and suggesting that they have more control over a more accurate details (locations)... such details that they are not allowed to control in the current setup. Thank you, Ammar -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
