Le 20/02/2013 01:01, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
=> Someone, somewhere (perhaps the IAB) needs to write an
architectural document to tell various industries to _stop_ doing
that. The IID is a set of bits that have no meaning, please stop
trying to create it in an industry/link layer technology-spec
A similar issue is likely to emerge with other mobile device - mobile
device communication,where there are a large number of mobile devices
circulating globally, but relatively few of them are present in any one
given area at any given time e.g. wearable computing, medical monitors,
RFID tags attac
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 6:14 PM, sofiane Imadali
wrote:
> Hi,
> Thanks for your interest Roger, your question is very pertinent and I
> wanted to share it with the group (hope you don't mind bringing this
> offlist mail to the list).
no I don't mind, I'll comment on your answer inline
> -
> I too would be in favor of using ULAs for this in-vehicle purpose.
it would be very appropriate, as in vehicles, there is always a
probability of collision.
randy
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrati
> From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Randy Bush
[ULAs]
> ahh. so this is really just another end-run around the registry
> system. instead, fix the registries.
Of course, but what's wrong with that? I too would be in favor of using ULAs
for this in-vehic
Hi,
Thanks for your interest Roger, your question is very pertinent and I
wanted to share it with the group (hope you don't mind bringing this
offlist mail to the list).
Indeed, one needs to understand the context before understanding the
possible uses of the method.
First, a bit of state of the
On Feb 20, 2013, at 7:49 AM, "Bless, Roland (TM)" wrote:
> Hi Randy,
>
> On 20.02.2013 12:40, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> Yes, I know in practice they do leak, that's why I wrote "should". My
>>> statement was a little bit imprecise - I apologize. No leakage wasn't
>>> actually my point rather than
>> for more assurance of such wonderful properties, and no
>> probabilities, you may want to check out ipv6 global address space
> Agreed, this is probably even a better choice, however,
> some manufacturers do not want to pay for non-routable
> IPv6 global address space and depending on the number
Hi Randy,
On 20.02.2013 12:40, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Yes, I know in practice they do leak, that's why I wrote "should". My
>> statement was a little bit imprecise - I apologize. No leakage wasn't
>> actually my point rather than internal use only. So no matter which
>> kind of addresses you empl
> Yes, I know in practice they do leak, that's why I wrote "should". My
> statement was a little bit imprecise - I apologize. No leakage wasn't
> actually my point rather than internal use only. So no matter which
> kind of addresses you employ for "internal use" only, they may
> accidentally le
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
> 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
randy
IETF IPv6 working group mailing
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
>>
>>=> Someone, somewhere (perhaps the IAB) needs to write an
>> architectural document to tell various industries to _stop_ doing
>> that. The IID is a set of bits that have no meaning, please stop
>> trying to create it in an industry/link layer technology-specific
>> manner. It does do anything
Le 19/02/2013 15:49, Scott Brim a écrit :
On 02/19/13 09:23, Alexandru Petrescu allegedly wrote:
Well I agree with you in a sense. Connecting a vehicle to the
Internet in that way makes it easier than before to find its VIN.
However, may I add that the VIN of a vehicle is very easy to get.
It
On 2/19/13 6:31 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Le 18/02/2013 22:07, Roger Jørgensen a écrit :
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Scott Brim
wrote:
I have the usual concerns about privacy. I have no problem with
someone knowing the endpoint that is communicating is associated
with a vehicle (or t
On 02/19/13 09:36, Alexandru Petrescu allegedly wrote:
> I agree to the privacy concerns.
Great. Thanks.
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
---
On 02/19/13 09:23, Alexandru Petrescu allegedly wrote:
> Well I agree with you in a sense. Connecting a vehicle to the Internet
> in that way makes it easier than before to find its VIN.
>
> However, may I add that the VIN of a vehicle is very easy to get. It is
> displayed under the shield and
Le 19/02/2013 00:06, Thierry Ernst a écrit :
I also think a VIN-based IPv6 addressing is a bad idea.
People involved in ITS (Intelligent Transportation System) in other
SDOs (ISO, ETSI, CEN) are using pseudonyms at L2 (see the SeVeCom
project, or the PRESERVE project) and NEMO at L3 (see GeoNet
Le 18/02/2013 22:07, Roger Jørgensen a écrit :
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Scott Brim
wrote:
I have the usual concerns about privacy. I have no problem with
someone knowing the endpoint that is communicating is associated
with a vehicle (or that I, a human, am communicating from a
vehicle
Le 18/02/2013 22:07, Roger Jørgensen a écrit :
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Scott Brim
wrote:
I have the usual concerns about privacy. I have no problem with
someone knowing the endpoint that is communicating is associated
with a vehicle (or that I, a human, am communicating from a
vehicle
Le 19/02/2013 08:46, Hesham Soliman a écrit :
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Scott Brim
wrote:
I have the usual concerns about privacy. I have no problem with
someone knowing the endpoint that is communicating is associated
with a vehicle (or that I, a human, am communicating from a
vehicl
>On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
>> I have the usual concerns about privacy. I have no problem with someone
>> knowing the endpoint that is communicating is associated with a vehicle
>> (or that I, a human, am communicating from a vehicle). However, if
>> someone can map easi
On 2/18/13 1:07 PM, Roger Jørgensen wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
I have the usual concerns about privacy. I have no problem with someone
knowing the endpoint that is communicating is associated with a vehicle
(or that I, a human, am communicating from a vehicle).
I also think a VIN-based IPv6 addressing is a bad idea.
People involved in ITS (Intelligent Transportation System) in other SDOs
(ISO, ETSI, CEN) are using pseudonyms at L2 (see the SeVeCom project, or
the PRESERVE project) and NEMO at L3 (see GeoNet, CVIS and the ITSSv6
projects) so that loc
On 02/18/13 16:07, Roger Jørgensen allegedly wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
>> I have the usual concerns about privacy. I have no problem with someone
>> knowing the endpoint that is communicating is associated with a vehicle
>> (or that I, a human, am communicating f
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Scott Brim wrote:
> I have the usual concerns about privacy. I have no problem with someone
> knowing the endpoint that is communicating is associated with a vehicle
> (or that I, a human, am communicating from a vehicle). However, if
> someone can map easily fro
I have the usual concerns about privacy. I have no problem with someone
knowing the endpoint that is communicating is associated with a vehicle
(or that I, a human, am communicating from a vehicle). However, if
someone can map easily from an IP address to a VIN (thus knowing the
specific vehicle
28 matches
Mail list logo
