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

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?

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>> 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
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops