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

[Owen DeLong <[e-mail]>]

The draft doesn't say anything about VIN numbers.

The draft provides a /48 for every ASN automatically by allocating a  /16 prefix to\
which the 32 bit ASN is appended.

VINs entered the discussion when someone presented an example of how this
address space might be (mis?)used.

Owen

On Feb 21, 2013, at 8:45 AM, Bill Jouris <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> Fair enough.  But in that case, the whole draft would seem to be outside our competence.  
> 
> All I'm saying is that, if the IETF is going to say anything about relating IPv6 addresses to VIN numbers, the SAE folks ought to be involved as well.
> 
> Bill 
> 
> --- On Thu, 2/21/13, Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> From: Nick Hilliard <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Comments to draft-mlevy-v6ops-auto-v6-allocation-per-asn
> To: "Bill Jouris" <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail], "joel jaeggli" <[e-mail]>
> Date: Thursday, February 21, 2013, 8:22 AM
> 
> 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 /<[e-mail]>/* wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >     From: joel jaeggli <[e-mail]>
> >     Subject: Re: [v6ops] Comments to
> >     draft-mlevy-v6ops-auto-v6-allocation-per-asn
> >     To: "Bill Jouris" <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
> >     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 <[e-mail]
> >     </mc/compose?to=[e-mail]>
> >     >     </mc/compose?to=[e-mail]
> >     </mc/compose?to=[e-mail]>>> 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
> >     > [e-mail] </mc/compose?to=[e-mail]>
> >     > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > v6ops mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Network Ability Ltd. | Chief Technical Officer | Tel: [phone]
> 3 Westland Square    | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: [phone]
> Dublin 2, Ireland    | Exchange Association    | Email: [e-mail]
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops