Hi, Alex, On 04/02/2013 12:55 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: >> IMO, you should follow what appears to be the consensus on the >> subject: set the IID in whatever way you want, > > About this there is a tendency to agreement. The privacy aspect should > be considered, balanced by a privacy-to-mobility tradeoff.
Which privacy aspect? > But this VIN topic is also about how to generate an ULA prefix when no > EUI-64 is available. (if ULAs are good to be used in a vehicle). The ULA spec relies on that? Anyway.. the idea is that you randomize the prefix... >>> 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? > > YEs it is. Network mobility has a means to dynamically acquire a prefix > for the moving network, from the HA. But it doesnt say whether that > prefix could be used for direct vehicle-to-vehicle communications, or > shouldnt. Not sure what you mean.... >>> _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. > > Yes, and it suggests an algorithm for doing so. That algorithm uses > EUI-64. Some MRs may have several such, or none. What to use in these > case? OK. Lt me take a look -- anyway, my rough guess is that you'd be fine by just randomizing the prefix part. (i.e., the router). >> 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 > > Yes. Precisely as IPv6 addresses are IPv6 addresses and sometimes > contain EUI-64 identifiers in clear. We should eventually move away from that. See draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses. >> 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. > > Provided that the use of ULA in a vehicle is acceptable, one would try > to find out how to generate a ULA prefix in a vehicle, and maybe on a > Mobile Router which has several EUI-64, or none. If you expect communication across vehicles, then your upstream router should be the one generating the prefix. If only in-vehicle communication is expected, you'd be okay by just randomizing the prefix. -- But I'll double-check with the UA spec and come back to you -- please feel free to ping me if I forget. Cheers, -- 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
