Hi,
Thanks for your interest Roger, your question is very pertinent and I
wanted to share it with the group (hope you don't mind bringing this
offlist mail to the list).
Indeed, one needs to understand the context before understanding the
possible uses of the method.
First, a bit of state of the art that couldn't appear in the drafts.
VIN is not a private information. It is meant to be public. I gave a
list of ISO specifications that say exactly How a VIN is built, Where
it should appear, How to reverse engineer it. In a nutshell, the VIN
is alphanumeric, it appears on your wind shield, and you can break it
down to 3 pieces: the manufacturer ID, the vehicle's description, and
the vehicle ID.
- What networking questions/perspectives should these VIN-related
data trigger ?
- Today in a closed operator domain, the vehicle (Mobile Router)
can generate a ULA prefix for site-scoped communications. It is
subject to collisions if used on a large number of vehicles (10^4 or
more - RFC4193). In the vehicular context you're facing this
limitation.
For applications such as remote diagnosis, or other services
(involving access to in-vehicle Machines), the solution we propose
allows to create a predictable (deterministic manner) unique
(collision-free) prefix, that in a closed loop (operator domain,
manufacturer domain) allows you to determine which vehicle to access
with which prefix: No DNS, No Prefix Delegation, No DHCPv6, nor any
other additional artefact involved.
Again, with this proposal, if you are an operator/manufacturer with a
list of your vehicles fleet, you can determine a list of ULA prefixes
to access each one of them: No additional protocol involved, no
collisions.
- What applications can be enabled by the use of this kind of
VIN-based Prefixes and IDs ?
- This also answers the question of regarding those 2 proposals
only from a privacy-concerns standpoint. Vendor web-based apps where
you give a VIN code and returns the history of a vehicle already
exists. When selling your car, a buyer can look up your VIN in a
database and get a history of car accidents, repairs ...etc all
related to your vehicle. This is no science-fiction, it has already
been used in the US for quite a while. Here is on example googling the
keywords (second hand car VIN history):
http://www.edmunds.com/car-buying/vin-check.html
- About the privacy concerns.
- I am no expert in the field of privacy. I do understand the
concerns though, and this is why I chose to trigger them in the draft
and in my research work before it is evoked in the mailling list. My
humble opinion about the subject is that we should not mistake VIN for
a MAC. Not compare them, and not apply blindly the concepts of MAC
randomization for VIN-based IIDs/Prefixes. The compromise of
(Uniqueness/randomization And Privacy) that is studied and
standardized in RFC 4941 for IID, should not directly apply to VIN
with no regard to the nature of the object we are using. Please have a
look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VIN_Etching, which should inform
you more about another possible application of VIN (in general, not
just networking) which is car theft prevention, to understand why
*your VIN is a public good and not a private property that you buy
with your car*.
To sum up; in order not to trigger (too soon) the privacy concerns and
be blocked by that, the primal use case (domain, site) would be a
closed operator network, or car manufacturer in the manufacture
(closed loop). This method allows us to set internal routing to access
the in-vehicle devices, by a deterministic manner: VIN --> ULA prefix.
No additional protocol is needed to do that. Any service provided by
this devices (monitoring vehicle state for example) is a use case that
applies to this addressing approach.
Thanks for reading and feedback;
Cheers
Sofiane
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Roger Jørgensen <rog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What I wonder about is why we need this, what are the usecases and the
> _intention_ behind these two draft from you?
>
> just... why?
>
>
> The reason I ask is that I try to understand it, and see if the
> privacy option is a real concern in _your_ context or not.
>
>
>
> --- Roger J ---
>
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 7:49 PM, sofiane Imadali
> <sofiane.imadali.i...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello 6MAN folks,
>>
>> I would like to announce, on behalf of the co-authors, the submission
>> of 2 drafts relating to VIN-based IPv6 addressing.
>> VIN stands for Vehicle Identification Number, and it is specifically
>> used in a context of IPv6 vehicular communications. These proposals
>> aim at providing discussion about a new mapping/conversion method from
>> VIN to ULA prefixes (guaranteed unique) and Interface Identifiers.
>>
>> Please find the above mentioned documents at:
>> 1) Vehicle Identification Number-Based IPv6 Interface Identifier
>> (VIID), at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-imadali-its-vinipv6-viid-00
>> 2) Vehicle Identification Number-Based Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
>> Addresses (VULA), at:
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-imadali-its-vinipv6-vula-00
>>
>> Your comments are welcome,
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Sofiane.
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> ipv6@ietf.org
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> --
>
> Roger Jorgensen | ROJO9-RIPE
> rog...@gmail.com | - IPv6 is The Key!
> http://www.jorgensen.no | ro...@jorgensen.no
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
