On Nov 26, 2012, at 06:56 , "Carlos M. Martinez" <carlosm3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just for redundancy's sake: No, L3 is **not** the place for this kind of > information. L3 is supposed to be simple, easy to implement, fast to > switch. In Spanish we have a very strong adjective for this kind of > ideas: "pésimo". I couldn't find a similar one in English without using > foul words :-) > The rough translation of pésimo is "terrible". And it certainly applies here. FYI. Owen > In any case, and as it already has been pointed out, I can imagine an > upper layer protocol, similar to NTP that reports GPS coordinates. Come > to think of it, if NTP could be extended this would fit in nicely as > there are already lots of NTP nodes which already have GPS sensors. > > Additionally, unless the proponents of this idea are expecting every > router manufacturer to build GPS chips into their gear and us datacentre > operators to drill holes on our roofs for the antennas, I don't see any > real useful role for this extension header. > > cheers! > > ~Carlos > > On 11/26/12 9:20 AM, Mohacsi Janos wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, Ammar Salih wrote: >> >>> Thank you everyone, I appreciate your feedback and will try to >>> summarize few >>> points in one email to avoid duplication .. apologies if I missed any. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> This is not data that should be sent on every packet. It becomes >>> redundant. >>> >>> >>> >>> 1- It does not have to be in every IPv6 header, only when there is >>> location >>> update. >> >> It should not be in any IPv6 packet. It has to be in an upper layer >> protocol. >> >> >>> >>> 2- the host should have the option of not sending location updates. >> >> In worst case. Host should have an option to sending location update - >> probably not in IP headers, but upper layer protocol. >> >>> >>> 3- I am suggesting an *extension header*, which means that operators will >>> have the option of not using it in case they don't want to. >> >> >> I suggest an upper layer protocol. Something like HTTP, TCP or UDP >> option. The server can initiate a carry, and a client can decide to >> answer with location information. >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> A good alternative would be to create application layer protocols that >>> could request and send GPS positions. >>> >>> 1- there are already several application-layer mechanisms which have been >>> created for this purpose, none of them has been considered by major >>> service >>> providers, google for example is still using RIR info for determining >>> location-based settings like language. >>> >>> >>> 2- Layer 7 will not be detected by layer 3 devices (routers) .. so >>> location-based service on layer-3 will not be possible. >>> >>> >>> 3- Currently, many applications do not share same mechanisms to obtain >>> location or location-related data, GEOPRIV WG [1] works on http location >>> mechanism, but *for the sake of example* VoIP soft-switches may not >>> support >>> http protocol, so a new mechanism needs to be developed- which has >>> been done >>> [2] .. W3c has also specified another API that provides scripted >>> access to >>> geographical location information [3] which has not been considered by >>> others .. >>> >>> that's why I am suggesting a unified lower layer *optional* mechanism >>> which >>> is capable of supporting all other applications. >>> >> >> I prefer application and at most the transport layer protocol extension. >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/charter/ >>> >>> [2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6442 >>> >>> [3] http://dev.w3.org/geo/api/spec-source.html >>> >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> ------ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> I see major privacy issues with this. Why introduce more intelligence >>> which WILL eventually be used for more intrusion into the private >>> lives of >>> all of us? >>> >>> >>> >>> 1- The host should have the option of not sending location updates. >>> >>> 2- It's extension header, means it's up to the service provider >>> to use >>> the feature or not. >>> >>> 3- Users are being routed through ISPs, if we don't trust the ISP then I >>> can assure you that ISP can get much more information than physical >>> location, any un-encrypted traffic -which is the majority- can be >>> analyzed >>> at the ISP level (up to layer-7). >>> >>> >>> >>> Anythink you write on facebook for example *if you don't use https* >>> can be >>> detected, including location tags, relationships, activities, wall posts, >>> friends ... and much more, all your http traffic, including documents you >>> read, messages, usernames, passwords, bank accounts ...etc. >>> >>> >>> >>> Other than ISP, sniffers can be connected to the same layer-2/layer-3 >>> device >>> as mine, in this case I would worry about >>> usernames/passwords/accounts/files/keys/pictures/messages .. etc, but not >>> location as the sniffer in this case is mostly sitting at the same >>> physical >>> location as mine. >>> >>> >>> >>> 4- our locations currently are being sent anyways through RIR info, >>> without >>> our awareness or control, I am suggesting to have the end user control >>> the >>> feature, still his/her option though not to send location updates. >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Thank you everyone for your time and professional feedback, I highly >>> appreciate it! >>> >>> >>> >>> Please be informed that this is only a draft, and I am requesting >>> comments, >>> I also apologize for those who felt uncomfortable about the draft *they >>> should not* as the whole feature is optional - in case its implemented. >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Ammar >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> From: Ammar Salih [mailto:ammar.sa...@auis.edu.iq] >>> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 3:00 PM >>> To: 'nanog@nanog.org' >>> Subject: Adding GPS location to IPv6 header >>> >>> >>> >>> Dears, I've proposed a new IPv6 "extension header", it's now posted on >>> IETF >>> website, your ideas and comments are most welcome! >>> >>> >>> >>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-add-location-to-ipv6-header/?include_t >>> >>> ext=1 >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Ammar Salih >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>
