Hi Brian,
On 08.10.2013 21:45, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> NEW
>Today, IPv6 packets are often forwarded not only on the basis of their
>first 40 bytes by straightforward IP routing. Some routers, and a
>variety of intermediate nodes often referred to as middleboxes, such
>as firewal
Hi,
On 19.07.2013 00:11, Bob Hinden wrote:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-ug-01
>
> as a Proposed Standard. Substantive comments and statements of support for
> advancing this document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial
> suggestions can be sent to the auth
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On 04.04.2013 17:02, Michael Richardson wrote:
> I think that imadali-its-vinipv6 is the wrong idea. If it is
> useful for a manufacturer to derive a subnet-ID from a VIN, that's
> fine, but I think it's a private matter. Let's write a BCP on ho
Hi,
On 21.03.2013 13:57, Ole Troan wrote:
> This message starts a one week 6MAN Working Group call on confirming the
> consensus on the mailing list:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-carpenter-6man-ug-01
>
> as a Working Group Document. Additional statements of support or opposition
> sh
Hi Randy,
On 20.02.2013 12:09, Randy Bush wrote:
>> This is sufficient for the onboard communication network, which was
>> the problem we addressed. ULAs are a good match, since these addresses
>> should not leak.
>
> and rfc1918 should not leak
Yes, I know in practice they do leak, that's why I
Hi Alex,
On 19.02.2013 15:31, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> I agree privacy is important.
>
> An alternative method from R. Bless proposes to use a SHA output in the
> prefix field of an address. This has an advantage with respect to
> privacy - it's hardly feasible to reversely derive the VIN of
Hi,
On 08.02.2013 09:31, Rémi Després wrote:
> Hosts of an IPv6 customer site can have IPv6 addresses assigned, with
> SLAAC or DHCPv6, BEFORE 4rd is activated.
> If these addresses become in conflict with the CE 4rd address when
> 4rd is activated, renumbering becomes necessary. The objective
Hi,
On 06.02.2013 17:55, Rémi Després wrote:
>> Am 06.02.2013 14:52, schrieb Rémi Després:
>>> As already said, the 4rd range only makes a first use of an existing
>>> RFC4291 provision: "The use of the universal/local bit in the
>>> Modified EUI-64 format identifier is to allow development of fut
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Michael,
On 06.02.2013 19:23, Michael Richardson wrote:
>> "TM" == TM writes:
>>> RFC4291 is clear that packets destined to ff01::/16 must never
>>> leave the local node, but what should be done if such packets
>>> are received as a result f
Hi,
On 27.03.2012 09:33, Brian Haberman wrote:
Please state your preference for one of the following default options :
A. Prefer public addresses over privacy addresses
B. Prefer privacy addresses over public addresses
I prefer option B.
Regards,
Roland
Hi,
On 29.09.2011 15:44, Christopher Morrow wrote:
> have to help in the educational process a bit, but hiding behind
> 'private addressing' and 'we never want to ... oops, we connected to
> the internet!' just isn't working today.
As a general statement fine, but in our use case you
a) need stab
Hi Jeroen,
Am 29.09.2011 09:30, schrieb Jeroen Massar:
> You do realize that the RIRs are providing exactly what you describe? :)
>
> - globally guaranteed unique (due to registry) large address prefixes
>
> Which is why from my information ULA-C has also been abandoned, as it
> already is some
Hi Dan,
On 28.09.2011 23:28, Dan Wing wrote:
> ALGs are harmful and the NAT industry has over a decade experience
> that shows ALGs are harmful. ALGs have prevented proper operation
> of SIP, FTP, and a variety of other protocols. The more complex
> a protocol, the more likely an ALG interferes
Hi Brian,
Am 28.09.2011 23:07, schrieb Brian E Carpenter:
> On 2011-09-28 23:08, Roland Bless wrote:
> ...
>> The current ULA-C...
>
> What do you mean? There is no current definition of ULA-C.
That's right :-)
I was referring to the definition in RFC 4193 with L=0, i
Hi Joel,
On 28.09.2011 22:39, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> Then use a good firewall to control what is and is not allowed to pass.
> What I am objecting to is requiring an ALG, and using addressing to try
> to create security.
Sure, ALGs are ugly, but usually you don't want
any kind of unwanted traff
Hi Joel,
On 28.09.2011 22:10, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> There seem to be a number of assumptions, some of which I suspect I am
> misunderstanding, in the case being described.
Yes, I guess so.
> I tend to make two assumptions:
> 1) Even low end intra-automotive devices can cope with multiple addr
Hi David,
On 28.09.2011 20:24, David Farmer wrote:
> Yes, OUI exhaustion isn't and shouldn't be a problem unless we make
> it one.
>
> My point was if you implement your proposal without doing a more
> classic ULA-C also, you will create demand for OUIs from the
> enterprise world just so they ca
Hi Tom,
On 28.09.2011 14:44, t.petch wrote:
> There was a recent post on OPSAWG from the IEEE RAC about their need
> to ensure that they do not run out of OUI; it was Cloud Computing that
> triggered their concern, but this might as well.
Thanks for the hint. I see the point. The problem is caus
Hi Thierry,
On 28.09.2011 11:05, Thierry Ernst wrote:
> Car will have multiple prefixes, for different usages. The car makers
Our scenario is roughly like this:
- the car has an IP-based on board network between its
ECUs for internal control. This directly impacts the safety of
the car in man
Hi David,
On 28.09.2011 00:06, David Farmer wrote:
> Also, the RIR policies focus on Internet connected uses of addresses.
> Sometimes the policies outright prohibit non-connected use. Or if they
> don't, there are written in ways that to the uninitiated think the
> policies prohibit such use. A
Hi David,
On 27.09.2011 23:28, David Farmer wrote:
> I'm warming to the idea. However if we do something like this for the
> manufacturing world we better move forward normal ULA-C for the
The current ULA-C has the problem of allocating /48s. A manufacturer
would have to request many of them and
Hi,
On 27.09.2011 23:25, Warren Kumari wrote:
> Did you follow the link in my earlier email[0]? : Comprehensive Experimental
> Analyses of Automotive Attack Surfaces --
> http://www.autosec.org/pubs/cars-usenixsec2011.pdf
> And a vide of same (well worth watching) from USENIX Security:
> htt
Hi Jeroen,
On 27.09.2011 17:55, Jeroen Massar wrote:
> 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
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) a
Hi,
On 27.09.2011 18:06, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
> At the risk of stating the obvious, ULA does not provide any
> real-world security... They do not have the E-bit set ;-)
Even with the :-), I neither understood nor described
ULAs as a security solution - they only simplify some
filtering ru
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 increasingly automotive telematics are being u
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
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 goi
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 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 I
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
b
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 manag
lacking a clear problem statement so that wasn't clear to me.
>> On 22 Jul 2011, at 04:59, Roland Bless wrote:
>>> a) the Flow Label is part of the standard common IPv6 header, thus
>>> always present and easier to process (even in the fast path) as
>>> you
Hi Erik,
On 22.07.2011 08:35, Erik Kline wrote:
>> I don't think that your proposed solution is necessary, since
>> IPv6 has the Flow Label, that - if set by the source - may be
>> very well suited for your purpose (tracking flows along a path).
>> Please see http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-
Hi,
On 22.07.2011 06:38, nalini.elk...@insidethestack.com wrote:
> Would love to get feedback on an Internet Draft we have submitted.
> The issue we are addressing is that the IP Identification field which
> was available with IPv4 in the main header is available with IPv6
> only in the Fragment
Hi Randy,
Am 04.07.2011 12:35, schrieb Randy Bush:
>> There are definitely cases where it can be useful to have a group of
>> anycast hosts inside a subnet, e.g., in order to increase robustness
>> of services etc.
>
> do you use this in production or test?
Frankly said, I wasn't aware that they
Hi Randy,
On 04.07.2011 00:01, Randy Bush wrote:
>IPv6 subnet anycast is not used operationally, complicates
>implementations, and complicates protocol specifications. The form
>of anycast actually used in the Internet is routing-based, and is
>essentilly the same as that of IPv4
Hi,
On 03.07.2011 19:03, Karl Auer wrote:
> Which RFCs (or other sources) describe how IPv6 subnet anycast *works*?
> In particular how it works when there are multiple routers in a single
> subnet?
That's a good question. I was also looking for that. It's distributed
across various RFCs:
---
Hi Scott,
On 31.03.2011 13:18, Scott Brim wrote:
>> Perhaps something a bit more relevant to IETF is generating a ULA prefix
>> from a VIN?
>
> If these addresses will never be used for anything except diagnostics
> and internal communications, then okay, but this looks like a classic
> case of
Hi,
On 31.03.2011 12:43, Nathan Ward wrote:
> Perhaps something a bit more relevant to IETF is generating a ULA prefix from
> a VIN?
That could indeed be useful.
In the German SEIS project we are considering to use IPv6
internally for communication between ECUs in cars. For such internal
use thi
Hi Alexandru,
On 31.03.2011 12:08, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> Thanks for the pointer, I am discovering OBD. We are also interested in
> wireless usage of IP within the vehicle, with off-the-shelf links (i.e.
> consumer electronics market wifi, bluetooth, ant) together with OBD if
> needed.
See
Hi George,
On 31.03.2011 11:16, George Michaelson wrote:
> I don't think "go away" is the right answer. I think "your model has
> flaws" is closer.
Yep. Given the huge IPv6 address space, some manufacturers are tempted
to use the IPv6 address as identifier.
> The key message is that if they appl
Hi Thierry,
On 31.03.2011 11:07, Thierry Ernst wrote:
> I fail to see why a VIN would be mapped to an IPv6 address as much as I
> fail to see why a passport number would be mapped to an IPv6 number. As
There may be scenarios where it may be useful to uniquely address
a particular car, e.g., for (
Hi Radek,
On 30.03.2011 17:31, Radek Wróbel wrote:
> Vehicle / mechanic engineers are working on a new On Board Diagnosis
> standard for vehicles
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics). Today EOBDv1 can
> diagnose (quasi online) 849 failures. One of most important advantage of
> EOB
Hi Vishwas,
Am 04.02.2011 18:53, schrieb Vishwas Manral:
> The problem is not just about known options here, like I mentioned
> earlier. A structure where there is a list which needs to be walked
> serially and no fixed place for an information, it is bad for the fast
> path.
I see.
> I have men
Hi Chris,
Am 04.02.2011 16:27, schrieb Christopher Morrow:
> which options? how often would you expect this list to update? routers
> live in the network for ~7 years or so, in large networks. ASIC
> updates mean very expensive (equipment, personnel, sla) changes are
> required.
Which options dep
Hi,
Christopher Morrow wrote:
> My feeling is this:
> hop-by-hop processing will happen in slow-path (if you permit it to
> happen at all), you can't build a router today with an asic that'll
> know how to handle options which are created in the future :(
while the latter is surely true, I don't
47 matches
Mail list logo
