On 9/28/11 19:09 , Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Dan Wing dw...@cisco.com wrote:
It's too bad computer science is not a science, or we would actually
look at the past, and this mistakes that were made, to build tomorrow's
systems. ALGs were a mistake.
I like
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.e.,
centrally assigned ULAs. I
On 2011-09-29 09:20 , Roland Bless wrote:
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
...@cisco.com
Cc: '6man'ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Centrally assigned ULAs for automotives and other
environments
Message-ID:4e839c19.9050...@gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
snip
I would think that you would actually want an
application server at the boundary, acting
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 something
Jeroen Massar jer...@unfix.org wrote:
|On 2011-09-29 09:20 , Roland Bless wrote:
| 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
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Roland Bless roland.bl...@kit.edu wrote:
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
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 stable
On Sep 28, 2011 11:26 PM, Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
On 9/28/11 19:09 , Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Dan Wing dw...@cisco.com wrote:
It's too bad computer science is not a science, or we would actually
look at the past, and this mistakes that were
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Roland Bless roland.bl...@kit.edu wrote:
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
-Original Message-
From: Roland Bless [mailto:roland.bl...@kit.edu]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 1:15 AM
To: Dan Wing
Cc: 'Joel M. Halpern'; '6man'
Subject: Re: Centrally assigned ULAs for automotives and other
environments
Hi Dan,
On 28.09.2011 23:28, Dan Wing wrote
On 9/29/11 06:44 , Christopher Morrow wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Roland Bless roland.bl...@kit.edu wrote:
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
On 9/29/11 06:20 , Dan Lanciani wrote:
Jeroen Massar jer...@unfix.org wrote:
|On 2011-09-29 09:20 , Roland Bless wrote:
| 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
Maybe we can start with new names;
ULA-S (Self-assigned) - Statistically unique prefix with local
algorithmic assignment at no cost, you assign a prefix yourself.
ULA-R (Registered) - Unique Prefix registered to an Organizations
through the RIRs, a prefix is assigned to you.
ULA-M
Joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
| Jeroen Massar jer...@unfix.org wrote:
|
| |On 2011-09-29 09:20 , Roland Bless wrote:
| | 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
Message: 3
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2011 15:36:31 +0200
From: Roland Blessroland.bl...@kit.edu
To: 6manipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Centrally assigned ULAs for automotives and other
environments
Message-ID:4e81d15f.6090...@kit.edu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Hi,
it seems that there is currently
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:
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 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.
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
Eric Vyncke (evyncke) evyn...@cisco.com wrote:
|The 'only' advantage of ULA vs. GUA is ease of filtering on a very short and
well-known prefix.
Well, the other advantage is cost, and that's exactly why we will likely
never have useful centrally allocated ULAs. If the ULAs were cheap they
would
- Original Message -
From: Roland Bless roland.bl...@kit.edu
To: David Farmer far...@umn.edu
Cc: 6man ipv6@ietf.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 12:08 PM
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
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 caused
On Sep 28, 2011, at 5:08, Roland Bless roland.bl...@kit.edu wrote:
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
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 can get
There seem to be a number of assumptions, some of which I suspect I am
misunderstanding, in the case being described.
I tend to make two assumptions:
1) Even low end intra-automotive devices can cope with multiple addresses
2) Even low end automotive-internal devices will need to communicate
:10 PM
To: Roland Bless
Cc: 6man
Subject: Re: Centrally assigned ULAs for automotives and other environments
There seem to be a number of assumptions, some of which I suspect I am
misunderstanding, in the case being described.
I tend to make two assumptions:
1) Even low end intra-automotive
, easily recognizable private IP addresses are a really
good feature.
Bert
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joel M.
Halpern
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 4:10 PM
To: Roland Bless
Cc: 6man
Subject: Re: Centrally assigned ULAs
On 9/28/11 15:25 CDT, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
I dunno about automotive, but I'm with Roland on the requirement to keep the
internal controls strictly isolated from the Internet in other platforms. Yes,
there is remote condition monitoring going on, but NEVER directly from the
Internet to
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
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.
Brian
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests:
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Roland Bless
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 2:04 PM
To: Joel M. Halpern
Cc: 6man
Subject: Re: Centrally assigned ULAs for automotives and other
environments
Hi Joel,
On 28.09.2011
On 9/28/11 14:57 CDT, Roland Bless wrote:
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
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.
Harmful in your sense of the word is good, in some circles. Remember, we are
only talking about
On 2011-09-29 10:28, Dan Wing wrote:
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Roland Bless
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 2:04 PM
To: Joel M. Halpern
Cc: 6man
Subject: Re: Centrally assigned ULAs for automotives and other
-Original Message-
From: Manfredi, Albert E [mailto:albert.e.manfr...@boeing.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 2:50 PM
To: Dan Wing; 'Roland Bless'; 'Joel M. Halpern'
Cc: '6man'
Subject: RE: Centrally assigned ULAs for automotives and other
environments
Dan Wing wrote
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 8:51 PM, Dan Wing dw...@cisco.com wrote:
It's too bad computer science is not a science, or we would actually
look at the past, and this mistakes that were made, to build tomorrow's
systems. ALGs were a mistake.
I like algs for some things but agree with dan here...
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
Subject: Centrally assigned ULAs for automotives and other
environments
Message-ID:4e81d15f.6090...@kit.edu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Hi,
it seems that there is currently not much interest in ULA-Cs (centrally
assigned ULAs). I came across several use cases, where
was
referring to.
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ray
Hunter
Sent: September-27-11 11:24 AM
To: Roland Bless
Cc: 6man
Subject: Centrally assigned ULAs for automotives and other, environments
Who are we trying to kid about there being
]
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ray
Hunter
Sent: September-27-11 11:24 AM
To: Roland Bless
Cc: 6man
Subject: Centrally assigned ULAs for automotives and other, environments
Who are we trying to kid about there being no need
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
:37
To: 6man
Subject: Centrally assigned ULAs for automotives and other environments
Hi,
For several reasons (esp. security) those networks
should operate isolated and independent from the Internet. In some cases
IETF IPv6
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,
58 matches
Mail list logo
