On 5 Apr 2013, at 16:55, Alexandru Petrescu alexandru.petre...@gmail.com
wrote:
I wonder whether homenet people consider that the prefix to be delivered
to a homenet could be longer than /64 (i.e. /65 or /66).
That would be considered a failure mode.
See 3.4.1 of the current homenet arch
Le 04/04/2013 21:56, Manfredi, Albert E a écrit :
-Original Message- From: Alexandru Petrescu
[mailto:alexandru.petre...@gmail.com]
Some applications involving the use of VIN may have been
discussed.
One requirement may come from V2V communications when
infrastructure is not
Le 05/04/2013 07:41, Roger Jørgensen a écrit :
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Michael Richardson
mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote: snip
If I can derive the VIN from the prefix, I agree that it helps
identify the vehicle, but not really. If any of this stuff is
going to be useful, there will
On 04/08/13 07:51, Alexandru Petrescu allegedly wrote:
Right. To avoid the particular privacy risk of reverse mapping IID-VIN,
one may use the output of a hash of the VIN. That would be ok to
respect privacy, yet it would disallow the applications which may need
this reverse mapping.
Le 08/04/2013 16:54, Scott Brim a écrit :
On 04/08/13 07:51, Alexandru Petrescu allegedly wrote:
Right. To avoid the particular privacy risk of reverse mapping
IID-VIN, one may use the output of a hash of the VIN. That would
be ok to respect privacy, yet it would disallow the applications
On 4/4/13 7:07 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Apr 4, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Richard Roy dick...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
[RR] As I am sure you know, privacy is a cross-layer issue. Any layer that
compromises privacy, compromises it for the user/ITS station. That said,
FNTP/WSMP replace the IP layer with a
On Apr 7, 2013, at 11:07 AM, joel jaeggli joe...@bogus.com wrote:
So that possibly makes sense internally to the car, although possibly not.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to me between cars, except perhaps in the
most restricted applications. When you talk about capacity constrained RF
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Roger Jørgensen rog...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Michael Richardson
mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
snip
If I can derive the VIN from the prefix, I agree that it helps identify
the vehicle, but not really. If any of this stuff is
Le 04/04/2013 22:22, Manfredi, Albert E a écrit :
-Original Message- From: Alexandru Petrescu
[mailto:alexandru.petre...@gmail.com]
For one, homenets don't move or at least not as fast as cars. A
homenet may change its attachment every year or so, whereas a car
may change it every 10
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/03/13 21:13, Michael Richardson allegedly wrote:
If I can derive the VIN from the prefix, I agree that it helps
identify the vehicle, but not really. If any of this stuff is
going to be useful, there will already be a collision avoidance
Doug == Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us writes:
Doug | If I can derive the VIN from the prefix, I agree that it helps
Doug | identify the vehicle, but not really.
Doug So if I know the VIN number of the vehicle I'm interested in, all I
Doug have to do is get on the network and
Ted == Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com writes:
So, we have assumed that a 802.11p sniffer sitting in Times Square can
sniff the prefix used by passing vehicles. If I put another sniffer
outside Wrigley Field, I can do correlation... how does knowing the VIN
help me? I
Le 03/04/2013 21:08, Doug Barton a écrit :
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
On 04/03/2013 09:00 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: | So, I have a
question: how much privacy is actually contained in the | VIN or
indexed by the VIN? Given that it's printed on the windshield. |
Yes, it
Le 04/04/2013 03:39, Doug Barton a écrit :
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 04/03/2013 06:13 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
| So, we have assumed that a 802.11p sniffer sitting in Times Square
| can sniff the prefix used by passing vehicles. If I put another
| sniffer outside
-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 how
On 4/4/13 8:16 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Le 03/04/2013 21:08, Doug Barton a écrit :
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256
On 04/03/2013 09:00 AM, Michael Richardson wrote: | So, I have a
question: how much privacy is actually contained in the | VIN or
indexed by the VIN? Given
for people who are interested, and in the bay area...
On 4/3/13 4:12 PM, Christie Dudley wrote:
I posted a while back about hacking privacy in the upcoming
DSRC/802.11p safety protocol they're talking about possibly mandating
for every car. A lot of people expressed interest, but I discouraged
Le 04/04/2013 03:18, Manfredi, Albert E a écrit :
-Original Message- From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org
[mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson
If I can derive the VIN from the prefix, I agree that it helps
identify the vehicle, but not really. If any of this stuff
Le 03/04/2013 21:36, Manfredi, Albert E a écrit :
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On
Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu
Yes, the ULA prefix (RFC 4193 section 3.2.2) generates a 48bit
prefix randomly. That suggested algorithm is seeded by time,
EUI-64 into a key, and then
On Apr 4, 2013, at 1:51 PM, Richard Roy dick...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
Furthermore, anonymity concerns and the simultaneous morphing of all content
in these safety messages that could be used to infer behavior and violate
privacy are being addressed within the IEEE 1609.2 and ETSI TC ITS security
-Original Message-
From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petre...@gmail.com]
Some applications involving the use of VIN may have been discussed.
One requirement may come from V2V communications when infrastructure is
not available: how to know the IP address of the seen
-Original Message-
From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petre...@gmail.com]
For one, homenets don't move or at least not as fast as cars. A
homenet
may change its attachment every year or so, whereas a car may change it
every 10 minutes or so.
Just as a side FYI, my homenet
On Apr 4, 2013, at 7:44 PM, Richard Roy dick...@alum.mit.edu wrote:
[RR] As I am sure you know, privacy is a cross-layer issue. Any layer that
compromises privacy, compromises it for the user/ITS station. That said,
FNTP/WSMP replace the IP layer with a different albeit null) networking
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 3:13 AM, Michael Richardson
mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
snip
If I can derive the VIN from the prefix, I agree that it helps identify
the vehicle, but not really. If any of this stuff is going to be
useful, there will already be a collision avoidance protocol that will
On 04/03/13 01:40, Fernando Gont allegedly wrote:
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
Le 03/04/2013 07:40, Fernando Gont a écrit :
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
Alexandru == Alexandru Petrescu alexandru.petre...@gmail.com writes:
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/03/13 12:00, Michael Richardson allegedly wrote:
Alexandru == Alexandru Petrescu
alexandru.petre...@gmail.com writes:
On 04/02/2013 12:55 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
IMO, you should follow what appears to be the consensus on
the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 04/03/2013 09:00 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
| So, I have a question: how much privacy is actually contained in the
| VIN or indexed by the VIN? Given that it's printed on the windshield.
| Yes, it contains model, year and manufacturer of
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Alexandru Petrescu
Yes, the ULA prefix (RFC 4193 section 3.2.2) generates a 48bit prefix
randomly. That suggested algorithm is seeded by time, EUI-64 into a
key, and then SHA-1.
Anyway.. the idea is that you
On 4/3/13 12:08 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 04/03/2013 09:00 AM, Michael Richardson wrote:
| So, I have a question: how much privacy is actually contained in the
| VIN or indexed by the VIN? Given that it's printed on the windshield.
| Yes, it
On Apr 3, 2013, at 12:00 PM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca
wrote:
So, I have a question: how much privacy is actually contained in the
VIN or indexed by the VIN? Given that it's printed on the windshield.
Yes, it contains model, year and manufacturer of the car, but all of
that
Scott == Scott Brim s...@internet2.edu writes:
So, I have a question: how much privacy is actually contained in
the VIN or indexed by the VIN? Given that it's printed on the
windshield. Yes, it contains model, year and manufacturer of the
car, but all of that information is
Ted == Ted Lemon ted.le...@nominum.com writes:
So, I have a question: how much privacy is actually contained in the
VIN or indexed by the VIN? Given that it's printed on the windshield.
Yes, it contains model, year and manufacturer of the car, but all of
that information is
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Michael Richardson
If I can derive the VIN from the prefix, I agree that it helps identify
the vehicle, but not really. If any of this stuff is going to be
useful, there will already be a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 04/03/2013 06:13 PM, Michael Richardson wrote:
| So, we have assumed that a 802.11p sniffer sitting in Times Square
| can sniff the prefix used by passing vehicles. If I put another
| sniffer outside Wrigley Field, I can do correlation... how
On Apr 3, 2013, at 9:13 PM, Michael Richardson mcr+i...@sandelman.ca wrote:
So, we have assumed that a 802.11p sniffer sitting in Times Square can
sniff the prefix used by passing vehicles. If I put another sniffer
outside Wrigley Field, I can do correlation... how does knowing the VIN
help
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 at
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
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
AM To:
Manfredi, Albert E Cc: Alexandru Petrescu; fg...@si6networks.com;
6man Subject: Re: I-D Action:
draft-imadali-its-vinipv6-viid-00.txt
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
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
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 communications is still a big deal
under use cases),
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-imadali-its-vinipv6-viid-00.txt
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
On 03/31/2013 07:39 PM, Manfredi, Albert E wrote:
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.
[]
A VIN is a fine unique identifier to use in the DNS, though. And
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 at the
wrong place, possibly at the expense of
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
about the interface into an IP address that way. And
Fernando Gont wrote:
On 03/28/2013 01:37 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: []
There are very many hurdles to a simple straightforward IPv6
address planning for vehicles.
1 - At most 2^78 vehicles may exist.
There may be not enough space in IPv6 addressing architecture space
to uniquely
Alexandru == Alexandru Petrescu alexandru.petre...@gmail.com writes:
A different way would be for the IETF to instruct IANA to create a
NCN space, and designate the VIN-mapping as a part of it. This would
be harder for the IETF to do, but would I think, lead to a better
Le 28/03/2013 19:51, Bob Hinden a écrit :
Alexandru,
On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:37 AM, Alexandru Petrescu
alexandru.petre...@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for the late reply.
Le 19/02/2013 22:08, joel jaeggli a écrit :
On 2/19/13 12:40 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
I think I may need to actually
Le 28/03/2013 20:29, Manfredi, Albert E a écrit :
-Original Message- From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org
[mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu
Well they're different than Ethernet interfaces. One could have
several Ethernet interfaces in a single car. And, cars have
Le 28/03/2013 19:24, Michael Richardson a écrit :
Alexandru == Alexandru Petrescu
alexandru.petre...@gmail.com writes:
Alexandru 2 - the prefixes obtained from Registries, or from ISP
(which one Alexandru should I try first?) may come with a price tag.
The more vehicles, Alexandru the pricier
On 03/28/2013 01:37 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
[]
There are very many hurdles to a simple straightforward IPv6 address
planning for vehicles.
1 - At most 2^78 vehicles may exist.
There may be not enough space in IPv6 addressing architecture space
to uniquely distinguish
Sorry for the late reply.
Le 19/02/2013 22:08, joel jaeggli a écrit :
On 2/19/13 12:40 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
I think I may need to actually better expose the problem: how to form
IPv6 addresses for vehicles. (yes we know these already exist: DHPCv6,
PRefix Delegation on cellular,
Alexandru == Alexandru Petrescu alexandru.petre...@gmail.com writes:
Alexandru 2 - the prefixes obtained from Registries, or from ISP (which one
Alexandru should I try first?) may come with a price tag. The more
vehicles,
Alexandru the pricier the allocation.
Depending upon the
Alexandru,
On Mar 28, 2013, at 9:37 AM, Alexandru Petrescu alexandru.petre...@gmail.com
wrote:
Sorry for the late reply.
Le 19/02/2013 22:08, joel jaeggli a écrit :
On 2/19/13 12:40 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
I think I may need to actually better expose the problem: how to form
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Alexandru Petrescu
Well they're different than Ethernet interfaces. One could have
several
Ethernet interfaces in a single car. And, cars have their globally
unique space of identifiers
I do not understand the following:
Bits 55 and 56 that correspond to U/L bits are set accordingly to the
recommendations.
I suppose the reference is to the U and G bits (in positions 6 and 7
in the IID, or 70 and 71 in the IPv6 address, in IETF notation).
But what recommendations apply?
On 02/19/13 09:40, Brian E Carpenter allegedly wrote:
Also, I do not wish to broadcast my VIN number to the world.
While VIN numbers are not a big secret, associating my on line
transactions with my car's identity is definitely a big no-no.
Right.
Le 19/02/2013 15:40, Brian E Carpenter a écrit :
I do not understand the following:
Bits 55 and 56 that correspond to U/L bits are set accordingly to
the recommendations.
I suppose the reference is to the U and G bits (in positions 6 and 7
in the IID, or 70 and 71 in the IPv6 address, in
On 02/19/2013 07:40 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Such a concern would be all the more valid if there were a specification
which said 'each vehicle MUST form its IIDs based on their VINs'. But
this is not the case. We are not trying for such a definitive document.
We are certain that some
On 02/19/13 15:40, Alexandru Petrescu allegedly wrote:
Le 19/02/2013 18:39, Doug Barton a écrit :
On 02/19/2013 07:40 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Such a concern would be all the more valid if there were a
specification which said 'each vehicle MUST form its IIDs based on
their VINs'. But
On 2/19/13 12:40 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
I think I may need to actually better expose the problem: how to form
IPv6 addresses for vehicles. (yes we know these already exist: DHPCv6,
PRefix Delegation on cellular, stateless autoconf, NAT, NPT, 64share).
One of the questions I have in
-Original Message-
From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Alexandru
Petrescu
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 9:40 PM
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-imadali-its-vinipv6-viid-00.txt
Outside the VIN discussion, it is already
On 02/19/2013 12:40 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Le 19/02/2013 18:39, Doug Barton a écrit :
On 02/19/2013 07:40 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Such a concern would be all the more valid if there were a
specification which said 'each vehicle MUST form its IIDs based on
their VINs'. But this
65 matches
Mail list logo
