> another good example would be webpage’s language, my language will be > detected more accurately based on my area rather than my country,
> This is a very bad idea. There are already mechanisms for determining > preferred languages. If those mechanisms are successful then why websites like google do not use them? They use IP address instead, and it's not always about http applications, how about VoIP applications, now you need another mechanism? .. how about detecting your preferred language for layer-3 routing? > In many cases people don't speak the language of the area they are located. Not many cases, maybe only while you are travelling to certain places of a language that you don't speak, in that rare case you can manually change the language via whatever application you are using. >as there are many countries with more than one popular language, not >mentioning that many ip registrations does not even reflect the traffic >originating country. >Why does this need to be in the IP header? There already exist >application layer mechanisms for obtaining location information. >Leaving it at the application layer also allows for appropriate privacy >UI controls. I've explained this in previous parts of the document, mainly because Layer-3 devices won't be able to recognize the feature, and also to unify the location implementations at different layers. > Routing: Policy based routing, based on geo-location, like routing > predefined traffic through certain server or path, for different > purposes (security, manageability, serviceability like choosing > language, or routing traffic to specific cashing or proxy server based > on country .. etc) >This is the only somewhat sane use case I could see for this information. >Even then, location of the originating request isn't always the correct >item to route on. It doesn't have to be always .. at least now you partially agree :) > Copyright law: It happens when certain media/web content is not > allowed in certain countries due to copyright law, the current method > of determining locations is not accurate at all, on other hand, If > layer-7 application to be used then the user might be able to > manipulate the location field, in this case (if it’s required in > future) the ISP can tag traffic with country/city more accurately as > traffic passes through ISP’s boarder routers. > The user can manipulate or control the lower layer IP traffic too. If > they can't this is an absurd privacy violation. Users currently have absolutely *NO* control over IP<->location mapping, it's totally how your IP owner has registered the IP subnet, what I am suggesting is that your local ISP *can* tag the city location "if it's required", unless you want to share your exact location or set the location to all zeros, in this case you are asking the ISP not to tag your location, but in this case you give up all location based services. > Maps, navigation, emergency calls and many other services will be also > enhanced with accurate locations. > Once again - this should be done at the application layer. > Response: It does not have to be in every IPv6 header, only when there > is location update, also the host should have the option of not to > send location updates. > Didn't you just mention above that information would be added by ISP > routers I said under the copyright law section "(if it’s required in future) the ISP can tag traffic with country/city more accurately as traffic passes through ISP’s boarder routers" ... which means the user has the option to put his/her real location, or set the location field to all zeros, or leave it without location tagging .. *BUT* if it's required by the government/or any other organization or third party in the future for the sake of protecting the copyright laws then the feature will be available to support that as well. > Response: For shortest path maybe yes, hops or latency is important, > not for policy-based routing, in our case you might want to do > location-based routing, like, routing traffic coming from French > speaking users (in multi-language country like Canada) to google.fr > I'm not sure what you mean here. It is easy to redirect users from > google.com -> google.fr based on their application layer language > preference. Google.fr example is confusing many people, which I will modify, policy based routing has much more than routing tcp:80 traffic. -- Eitan Adler -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
