Re: [v6ops] Comments to draft-mlevy-v6ops-auto-v6-allocation-per-asn

[Bill Jouris <[e-mail]>]

Just an FYI, 6man has got not one but TWO drafts on VINs and IPv6 addresses:

1) Vehicle Identification Number-Based IPv6 Interface Identifier
(VIID), at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-imadali-its-vinipv6-viid-00
2) Vehicle Identification Number-Based Unique Local IPv6 Unicast
Addresses (VULA), at:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-imadali-its-vinipv6-vula-00


It must be something in the air, that is putting the same area in everyone's heads....

Bill 


--- On Thu, 2/21/13, Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]> wrote:

From: Dino Farinacci <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Comments to draft-mlevy-v6ops-auto-v6-allocation-per-asn
To: "Nick Hilliard" <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]
Date: Thursday, February 21, 2013, 9:59 AM

So let's get back on track:

(1) I brought up VIN numbers because people are requesting for rather opaque addresses.
(2) I said that LISP EIDs are typically used as opaque addresses.
(3) I said the draft-mlevy-v6ops-auto-v6-allocation-per-asn is a decent encoding format for EIDs.

Nothing more was said, implied, or suggested.

Dino

On Feb 21, 2013, at 9:33 AM, Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 21/02/2013 17:08, Dino Farinacci wrote:
>> It is a real user/customer requirement. IETF should not tell users how
>> to assign their addresses. Just allow part of the address space
>> available so they can do what they want.
> 
> if the car makers want a new VIN bin, then they can have it.  The only
> requirement for creating a new bin is a common agreement between them that
> their chosen range of integers or symbols means something to them.  Whether
> or not this range is a subset of an ietf-assigned ipv6 subnet is completely
> irrelevant.
> 
> From the IETF's point of view, if the car makers come to them and ask them
> for a range of numbers for car VINs, my reaction would be "wut?"
> 
> Nick
> 

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops