- Forwarded message from Jeremy Lakeman -
From: Jeremy Lakeman
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 11:10:26 +1030
To: serval-project-develop...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [serval-project-dev] Re: Adding GPS location to IPv6 header
Reply-To: serval-project-develop...@googlegroups.com
Allocate an
On 11/26/12, Alex wrote:
> This would be great for troubleshooting things...I agree, but other than
> that it would create a whole new plethora of privacy concerns.
Just about every new technology, IP itself included has privacy concerns,
related to it; which is really just a fancy new name for
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 4:53 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> On Nov 26, 2012, at 14:51 , George Herbert wrote:
>
>> The utility of this is somewhat moderated by limited geographical
>> mobility while a phone's active in a single session. One rarely
>> drives from San Francisco to LA typing all the wa
On Nov 26, 2012, at 14:51 , George Herbert wrote:
> The utility of this is somewhat moderated by limited geographical
> mobility while a phone's active in a single session. One rarely
> drives from San Francisco to LA typing all the way on their smartphone
> data connection, for example.
>
Th
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Harald Koch wrote:
> On 26 November 2012 17:36, William Herrin wrote:
>> Suppose you have a large single-owner mesh network, such as a folks
>> walking around with cell phones. If you want them to have a stable
>> layer 3 address (and you do) then you're handling
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 05:46:33PM -0500, Harald Koch wrote:
> This also naively assumes that wireless network topology correlates with
> geographic location. Any radio engineer (or cell phone user) can explain
> why that doesn't work.
Serval has about 200 m line of sight range. In general
LoS vis
The utility of this is somewhat moderated by limited geographical
mobility while a phone's active in a single session. One rarely
drives from San Francisco to LA typing all the way on their smartphone
data connection, for example.
To the extent that you may apply IP ranges to wider geographical
a
This also naively assumes that wireless network topology correlates with
geographic location. Any radio engineer (or cell phone user) can explain
why that doesn't work.
On 26 November 2012 17:36, William Herrin wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:56:52PM -0200, Carlos M. Martinez 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
>
> I agree. You need to pu
ic, 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
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:56:52PM -0200, Carlos M. Martinez 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
I agree. You need to put it into L2, and the core usage would
be for wireless meshes
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 bein
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 IET
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 02:19:48PM -0800, John Adams wrote:
> Your proposal doesn't even give people a way to encrypt their location
> data; By moving geodata to a portion of the protocol which is not covered
It's not possible to hide location. Anonymity and efficient transport
don't mix. This wi
ase 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",
ists, typically non-disinterested third-parties
describe them as such.
--Dave
> -Original Message-
> From: Ammar Salih [mailto:ammar.sa...@auis.edu.iq]
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 7:00 AM
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Subject: Adding GPS location to IPv6 header
>
ither qualified NOR authorised to ask
>> such an appallingly
>> INSENSITIVE Question!
>>
>> Your so called "Freedom-of-Speech" DOES NOT translate to
>> Character-Assasination on this or any other forum!!
>>
>> Follow me you ipdog? Find you
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: RE: Adding GPS location to IPv6 header
Just because it is from Iraq; does NOT mean by any streach of the imagination
that OP is a terrorist!
You need to get outside the box you are living in and learn to separate the
forest from the trees!
You are "entitled&
NOG!
I do take exception to such garbage; while other's might not.
./Randy
--- On Sun, 11/25/12, Network IPdog wrote:
> From: Network IPdog
> Subject: RE: Adding GPS location to IPv6 header
> To: "'Randy'"
> Date: Sunday, November 25, 2012, 6:43 PM
On 11/25/12, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Ammar Salih
> wrote:
> Geographic-based layer 3 routing has been thoroughly discussed on the
> IRTF RRG and just as thoroughly rejected. It's wholly inadequate as an
> approximation for topographic locality within the network g
n Adams [mailto:j...@retina.net]
> Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 2:20 PM
> To: Ammar Salih
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org
> list
> Subject: Re: Adding GPS location to IPv6 header
>
> Your proposal doesn't even give people a way to encrypt
> their location data;
> By
rom: John Adams [mailto:j...@retina.net]
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 2:20 PM
To: Ammar Salih
Cc: nanog@nanog.org list
Subject: Re: Adding GPS location to IPv6 header
Your proposal doesn't even give people a way to encrypt their location data;
By moving geodata to a portion of the protoco
Your proposal doesn't even give people a way to encrypt their location
data; By moving geodata to a portion of the protocol which is not covered
by commonly used encryption methods (i.e. HTTPS, which is up a few layers
in the stack) people can't be protected should this data be monitored by a
mali
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 12:08:15PM -0500, William Herrin wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Ammar Salih wrote:
> > 2- Layer 7 will not be detected by layer 3 devices (routers) .. so
> > location-based service on layer-3 will not be possible.
>
> Geographic-based layer 3 routing has been th
On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 7:30 AM, Ammar Salih wrote:
> 2- Layer 7 will not be detected by layer 3 devices (routers) .. so
> location-based service on layer-3 will not be possible.
Geographic-based layer 3 routing has been thoroughly discussed on the
IRTF RRG and just as thoroughly rejected. It's w
On 25/11/2012 02:02, Michael Butler wrote:
> In a number of jurisdictions and particularly in the EU, IP addresses
> themselves (any version) are considered Personally Identifiable
> Information (PII) and are expected/required to be protected as such.
actually no. The EU Article 29 Data Protectio
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 t
On 11/24/12, John Adams wrote:
> Don't conflate layer 5-7 needs with basic communication requirements. IP is
> not the place for this sort of header.
IP is the logical place for this kind of header, as this information
is node dependent, not application dependent.
It would be useful for identif
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? I don't particularly care for "smart" ads and three like..
On Nov 24, 2012 9:37 AM, "Ammar Salih" wrote:
> Dears, I've proposed a new IPv6
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 11/22/12 06:59, Ammar Salih wrote:
> Dears, I've proposed a new IPv6 "extension header", it's now posted on IETF
> website, your ideas and comments are most welcome!
In a number of jurisdictions and particularly in the EU, IP addresses
themselves (
Im just going to come out and say this. This is a gigantic invasion of privacy
and a really bad idea.
- Original Message -
> From: "Ammar Salih"
> To: nanog@nanog.org
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 4:59:59 AM
> Subject: Adding GPS location to IPv6 header
>
On Nov 24, 2012, at 22:18, John Adams wrote:
> If there's a place where I can go and vote this down / debate it away, tell
> me where that is.
Not needed.
It already has been completely shredded at the relevant IETF mailing lists,
geopriv and ipv6 (6man WG).
I have no idea why Ammar isn't lis
It seems to me that there's a big problem with using this for rights
enforcement.
If the header is added by the user's device, then on certain operating
systems it will be trivial for the user to set this to whatever they want
it to be - which would defeat the purpose.
If the header is added by de
Don't conflate layer 5-7 needs with basic communication requirements. IP is
not the place for this sort of header.
This is not data that should be sent on every packet. It becomes redundant.
Not to mention the serious privacy concerns such a header brings up in the
protocol. You barely address th
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
35 matches
Mail list logo
