Le 01/04/2013 15:23, Scott Brim a écrit :
The scope of the draft was more or less restricted to in-vehicle
communications because of the privacy concerns ("The focus of this
work is to enable in-vehicle networks to exchange packets with
VIN-based IPv6 addresses." -- although inter-vehicle communications
is still a big deal under use cases), so I don't think use of DNS,
etc., apply. If the draft isn't really restricted to in-vehicle
communications I have a number of architectural arguments about why
it's a bad idea. VINs are neither topological locators nor IP
endpoint identifiers, and trying to map them onto either causes
confusion. They're fine as higher layer tokens.
I tend to agree.
Although I suppose a middle ground could exist where the scope of one
ULA prefix could cover not only one vehicle, but maybe all vehicles able
to hear it, but not the fixed infrastructure.
And yes, VINs are neither topological locators nor IP endppoint
identifiers. The VINs themselves may exist into their own layer, with
their own message headers, and message passing akin to what SMTP does.
Alex
Scott
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
