Re: I-D Action: draft-imadali-its-vinipv6-viid-00.txt

2013-04-02 Thread Fernando Gont
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-mob

Re: I-D Action: draft-imadali-its-vinipv6-viid-00.txt

2013-04-02 Thread Alexandru Petrescu
Le 01/04/2013 21:35, Manfredi, Albert E a écrit : Scott, If the only goal is in-vehicle, then clearly ULAs are the answer, and there's nothing more to be discussed. And for that matter, RFC 1918 addresses and IPv4 would be more than adequate. Limiting comms to in-vehicle does not require any glo

Re: I-D Action: draft-imadali-its-vinipv6-viid-00.txt

2013-04-02 Thread Alexandru Petrescu
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 communi

Re: I-D Action: draft-imadali-its-vinipv6-viid-00.txt

2013-04-02 Thread Alexandru Petrescu
Le 01/04/2013 00:39, Manfredi, Albert E a écrit : Alexandru Petrescu wrote: 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. Honestly, I've never much liked any scheme that attempts to hardcode anything ab

Re: I-D Action: draft-imadali-its-vinipv6-viid-00.txt

2013-04-02 Thread Alexandru Petrescu
Le 31/03/2013 07:25, Fernando Gont a écrit : 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 a

Re: [MBONED] "MLDv2 Procedures for Link-Layer Unicast Delivery of Multicast"

2013-04-02 Thread Andrew McGregor
Indeed, an 802.11 AP should be able to do this without breaking 802.11. However, there are probably wider cases where unicast fanout is worth doing. BTW, it's a common misconception that 802.11 transmit rates have something to do with range; actually, they're only very weakly correlated with rang

Re: [MBONED] "MLDv2 Procedures for Link-Layer Unicast Delivery of Multicast"

2013-04-02 Thread Toerless Eckert
Why should an AP not be able to convert multicast->unicast. All it would ahve to do is IGMPv3 snooping to know the clients connected to it. And it does know the per-client bitrate, aka: how far or how close a client is. I guess the one things that not possible is to send the smae multicast group