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

This is very similar to something we were exploring in the Medical/Insurance realms.   That is using IPV6 addresses for  entities/artifacts such as Claim or Subscriber numbers.    ARIN did not like that as rationale for additional or larger address space as alluded by Owen below.      But similar approaches are  being considered in multiple industries.

Why would that be preferred over MAC & SLAAC?    Not sure at this point as this is still being explored.  but possibly being more predictable, controlled and self documenting?

From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 8:45 PM
To: Bill Jouris
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Comments to draft-mlevy-v6ops-auto-v6-allocation-per-asn

Bill

I think that sums it up reasonably well. However, if they come back to the RIR for more space and try to use having put a bunch of numbers on VINs/Cars addressed by VIN that are not actually networked to the company using a network that topologically matches the numbering
scheme, then, the RIR should rightly count those addresses as not utilized in determining eligibility for additional space.

If you feel that some sort of recommendation to SAE is worth while, go for it. Personally, I don't understand the need for a car to have a permanently assigned prefix rather than just a MAC address and then get its prefix through SLAAC or get its addressing via DHCP.

If someone can explain this, I am open to being better convinced.

Owen

On Feb 20, 2013, at 14:20 , Bill Jouris <bill.jouris@insidethestack.com<mailto:bill.jouris@insidethestack.com>> 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.

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<http://www.insidethestack.com>
831-659-8360
925-855-9512 (direct)

> On Feb 19, 2013, at 5:09 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com<x-msg://10939/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<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

The information contained in this communication is highly confidential and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom this communication is directed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any viewing, copying, disclosure or distribution of this information is prohibited. Please notify the sender, by electronic mail or telephone, of any unintended receipt and delete the original message without making any copies.

 Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan are nonprofit corporations and independent licensees of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association.