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> 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
> 831-659-8360
> 925-855-9512 (direct)
> 
> 
> > On Feb 19, 2013, at 5:09 PM, Owen DeLong <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