On 03/30/2013 03:49 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>
>> That said, IPv6 addresses identify network attachment points. If you
>> need semantics other than that ("e.g., distinguish between past,
>> current, and future vehicles"). my take is that you're looking at the
>> wrong place, possibly at the expense of nodes that do the right
>> thing.
>
> I did't mean to say do distinguish between old and new vehicles by using
> an IPv6 address.
>
> I meant to say that this VIN mapping to an IPv6 address may be useful
> not only to newly manufactured vehicles, but also to old vehicles.
Why should a VIN map to an IPv6 address in the first place?
IMO, you should follow what appears to be the consensus on the subject:
set the IID in whatever way you want, as long as you don't expect others
to use the same semantics as yourself (or as long as you can gracefully
handle the case in which others do not employ the same semantics as you).
> Third-party vehicle equipment manufacturers (not those who manufacture
> the vehicle itself) may manufacture and sell a Router to be deployed in
> the vehicle, to connect the vehicle to the Internet. This Router would
> be put in new vehicles but also in old ones. (just like one may add e.g.
> rearview camera to a vehicle which didnt have one at manufacture time).
>
> This Router sold by the third-party needs to know what IPv6 addresses
> are or should there be in the vehicle.
Isn't this a case of network mobility?
> _If_ ULA space may be used then one wonders how to generate one ULA
> prefix for one vehicle. The RFC ULA does suggest an example algorithm,
> but it says other algorithms may be possible.
The idea is that the prefix is randomized, as to reduce colisions, IIRC.
> Also, the example given
> has some uncertainties (whose interface EUI-64 should be chosen?).
Not sure what you mean....
> This is one reason we came to generating IPv6 prefixes, and Interface
> IDs, out of VIN.
>
> (it's maybe only me who sends too many emails on this topic, but it is
> not only me and my co-authors of the mentioned drafts, but there are
> other people at IETF worked on this VIN-IPv6 topic, presented to f2f
> IETF meetings, and there exist some IPR activity in that space as well).
I'm not arguing that you're the only guy working on this, nor that this
VIN->IPv6 mapping might be useful to those working on VIN-IPv6 topic --
I'm rather arguing that IPv6 address should be... IPv6 addresses
(assuming you want IPv6 address to have any other semantics than "point
of attachment").
If your point is "We are not intending to introduce any additional
semantics to the IPv6 addresses/IIDs, but rather are not sure how we
should implement RFC XXXX in our specific case", please do let me know,
and I'll look further into this.
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
