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

On 21/02/2013 14:25, Bill Jouris wrote:
> That being the case, wouldn't we be stepping away from the whole idea of
> having IPv6 addresses related to VIN numbers?  Leave it to the auto
> industry to figure out how they want to deal with the subject?

I don't think the IETF has any competence to deal with VINs, has it?  If
the car-makers want to register an ipv6 prefix for whatever reason from
their RIR and have a 1:1 mapping between VINs and ipv6 addresses, then that
is entirely their concern but I don't see why the IETF should take any part
in this.

Nick

> 
> Bill Jouris
> Inside Products, Inc.
> www.insidethestack.com
> 831-659-8360
> 925-855-9512 (direct)
> 
> 
> --- On *Wed, 2/20/13, joel jaeggli /<joelja@bogus.com>/* wrote:
> 
> 
>     From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
>     Subject: Re: [v6ops] Comments to
>     draft-mlevy-v6ops-auto-v6-allocation-per-asn
>     To: "Bill Jouris" <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>, v6ops@ietf.org
>     Date: Wednesday, February 20, 2013, 11:22 PM
> 
>     On 2/20/13 2:20 PM, Bill Jouris wrote:
>     > Owen,
>     >
>     > So what you seem to be saying is: If manufacturers want to use a
>     specific part of their company allocation of addresses to give
>     addresses to the cars that they make based on VIN numbers, that is up
>     to them.  But IETF should not mandate allocating part of the overall
>     spectrum of addresses to them.
>     >
>     The assignment of global unicast v6 addresses to Registries, LIRs,
>     service providers and direct assignments is done elsewhere.
> 
>     We have examples of aircraft and other large structures such as
>     airports/tunnels and buildings receiving prefixes from their
>     manufacturers which had originally been obtained from RIRs.
>     > If so, perhaps we should at least suggest to the SAE (Society of
>     Automotive Engineers), which makes standards for that industry, that
>     they look at whether it makes sense for all of the companies to take a
>     uniform approach to how they do that.
>     >
>     > Bill Jouris
>     > Inside Products, Inc.
>     > www.insidethestack.com
>     > 831-659-8360
>     > 925-855-9512 (direct)
>     >
>     >
>     >     > On Feb 19, 2013, at 5:09 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com
>     </mc/compose?to=owen@delong.com>
>     >     </mc/compose?to=owen@delong.com
>     </mc/compose?to=owen@delong.com>>> wrote:
>     >
>     >
>     >     I do not support allocating globally unique prefixes for things
>     >     that are not networks.
>     >
>     >     Perhaps that will better explain my position.
>     >
>     >     I think that overloading the IPv6 prefix space with semantics for
>     >     arbitrary collections of things is a really bad idea that has
>     >     tremendous potential to consume vast amounts of addresses while
>     >     yielding no network benefit in return.
>     >
>     >     Will it exhaust the IPv6 space immediately, probably not. Could we
>     >     easily exhaust the ASN space if we start promoting the idea of
>     >     claiming ASNs to support this? Yeah, we could probably burn 4
>     >     billion ASNs that way without too much trouble.
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > v6ops mailing list
>     > v6ops@ietf.org </mc/compose?to=v6ops@ietf.org>
>     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 

-- 
Network Ability Ltd. | Chief Technical Officer | Tel: +353 1 6169698
3 Westland Square    | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981
Dublin 2, Ireland    | Exchange Association    | Email: nick@inex.ie