Hi,
it seems that there is currently not much interest in ULA-Cs (centrally
assigned ULAs). I came across several use cases, where manufacturers
(e.g, those of cars, airplanes, or smart metering environments)
would need internal/closed IPv6-based networks (maybe only for internal
control and
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Roland Bless roland.bl...@kit.edu wrote:
Hi,
it seems that there is currently not much interest in ULA-Cs (centrally
assigned ULAs). I came across several use cases, where manufacturers
(e.g, those of cars, airplanes, or smart metering environments)
would
On 2011-09-27 15:36 , Roland Bless wrote:
Hi,
it seems that there is currently not much interest in ULA-Cs (centrally
assigned ULAs). I came across several use cases, where manufacturers
(e.g, those of cars, airplanes, or smart metering environments)
would need internal/closed IPv6-based
Hi Christopher,
On 27.09.2011 15:49, Christopher Morrow wrote:
why can't these just use globally unique addresses?
They can, but there are similar reasons for using ULAs:
- They are not intended to be routed in the Internet
- They use a well-known prefix to allow for easy filtering at site
Hi Jeroen,
On 27.09.2011 15:51, Jeroen Massar wrote:
it seems that there is currently not much interest in ULA-Cs (centrally
assigned ULAs). I came across several use cases, where manufacturers
(e.g, those of cars, airplanes, or smart metering environments)
would need internal/closed
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org On Behalf Of Roland Bless
but there are similar reasons for using ULAs:
- They are not intended to be routed in the Internet
- They use a well-known prefix to allow for easy filtering at site
boundaries.
WEG] from the below it sounds like the first item isn't always
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:53 AM, George, Wes wesley.geo...@twcable.com wrote:
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org On Behalf Of Roland Bless
but there are similar reasons for using ULAs:
- They are not intended to be routed in the Internet
- They use a well-known prefix to allow for easy filtering at
On Sep 27, 2011 6:49 AM, Christopher Morrow christopher.mor...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Roland Bless roland.bl...@kit.edu
wrote:
Hi,
it seems that there is currently not much interest in ULA-Cs (centrally
assigned ULAs). I came across several use cases, where
Who are we trying to kid about there being no need for a connection to
the Internet?
FYI A consortium in the Netherlands have just announced a scheme that is
planning to link in-car navigation systems with traffic control and
information systems, and also public transport systems, so that if
That doesn't mean all the systems within the car need to speak to the
outside world. The engine thermometer doesn't care about traffic or the
location of the nearest train station. It just needs to tell the dashboard
its current read-out. I presume those are the kinds of systems the OP was
On Sep 27, 2011, at 11:36 AM, Rob V wrote:
That doesn't mean all the systems within the car need to speak to the
outside world. The engine thermometer doesn't care about traffic or the
location of the nearest train station.
True, but increasingly automotive telematics are being used / folk
On 2011-09-27 17:36 , Rob V wrote:
That doesn't mean all the systems within the car need to speak to the
outside world. The engine thermometer doesn't care about traffic or the
location of the nearest train station. It just needs to tell the dashboard
its current read-out. I presume those
Roland,
At the risk of stating the obvious, ULA does not provide any real-world
security... They do not have the E-bit set ;-)
More seriously, ULA can be routed, so, if a ULA route leaks, then your ULA can
be reached. Obviously, if your ULA gets a default route, then it can send
packets to
Hi Wes,
On 27.09.2011 16:53, George, Wes wrote:
WEG] A firewall/gateway can do this regardless of the address space
that you are using. What you're proposing is a use case similar to the
IPv4 model of using RFC1918 addresses + NAT/NAPT at the edge of the
private network, and you will not
Hi Ray,
On 27.09.2011 17:23, Ray Hunter wrote:
FYI A consortium in the Netherlands have just announced a scheme that is
planning to link in-car navigation systems with traffic control and
information systems, and also public transport systems, so that if
there's a traffic jam and it is going
Hi,
On 27.09.2011 17:36, Rob V wrote:
That doesn't mean all the systems within the car need to speak to the
outside world. The engine thermometer doesn't care about traffic or the
location of the nearest train station. It just needs to tell the dashboard
its current read-out. I presume
On Sep 27, 2011, at 3:15 PM, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
Doesn't seem logical to conclude that a NAT would be involved in any of this.
But even if it is, what's wrong with a basic NAT, i.e. one that provides a
simple one to one mapping for a subset of the internal addresses?
If you do need to
Hi Wes,
see inline.
On 27.09.2011 19:43, George, Wes wrote:
From: Roland Bless [mailto:roland.bl...@kit.edu]
all that I'm proposing is to use a stable internal addressing for the
onboard network (no matter how the car is currently connected to the
Internet) and to use a security
On Sep 27, 2011, at 4:32 PM, Roland Bless wrote:
Hi,
On 27.09.2011 17:54, Warren Kumari wrote:
That doesn't mean all the systems within the car need to speak to
the outside world. The engine thermometer doesn't care about
traffic or the location of the nearest train station.
True, but
On 9/27/11 08:36 CDT, Roland Bless wrote:
Hi,
it seems that there is currently not much interest in ULA-Cs (centrally
assigned ULAs).
That interest varies significantly I would suggest you are correct int
he IETF and service provider worlds. However, in the enterprise and
manufacturing
On 9/27/11 08:49 CDT, Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Roland Blessroland.bl...@kit.edu wrote:
Hi,
it seems that there is currently not much interest in ULA-Cs (centrally
assigned ULAs). I came across several use cases, where manufacturers
(e.g, those of cars,
Hi,
Section 4 of RFC 3484 states:
(http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3484#section-4)
4. Candidate Source Addresses
[. . .]
In any case, anycast addresses, multicast addresses, and the
unspecified address MUST NOT be included in a candidate set.
I don't know the exact
22 matches
Mail list logo
