On 9/29/11 06:44 , Christopher Morrow wrote: > On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Roland Bless <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Jeroen, >> >> Am 29.09.2011 09:30, schrieb Jeroen Massar: >>> You do realize that the RIRs are providing exactly what you describe? :) >>> >>> - globally guaranteed unique (due to registry) large address prefixes >>> >>> Which is why from my information ULA-C has also been abandoned, as it >>> already is something that has already been resolved. >> >> Ok, fine. We could use that _if_ the RIR policies allow unconnected use, >> but David Farmer pointed out that some policies may forbid that. I just >> figured out that RIPE's "IPv6 Address Allocation and Assignment Policy" >> says in 2.6: >> "To 'assign' means to delegate address space to an ISP or End User for >> specific use within the Internet infrastructure they operate." >> I'm not sure that one could denote the internal on-board network >> of a car as Internet infrastructure operated by ...?! > > it runs the 'internet protocol' right? > > in all seriousness, why would/should we (rir/internet community) care > if you use the resource on a link between you and your mom or between > you and comcast/telia/etc? my stance is that we ought not care, we > should assign the resources to folks who can put them to use. we may > have to help in the educational process a bit, but hiding behind > 'private addressing' and 'we never want to ... oops, we connected to > the internet!' just isn't working today.
Ask Bechtel where the addresses space used for aiports bridges and tunnels comes from and how they assign address space to structures with a design life measured in decades. prefix assignment to customers even for disconted networks is a really convenient way to insure non-overlap far into the future. >>> What makes me wonder though, is why you would want to have different >>> prefixes in different locations that never ever ever will talk to each >>> other directly using those prefixes. >> >> As already said, maybe not in the car scenario but in others. >> However, history told us that address uniqueness is preferable in most >> cases. > > addresses from the RIR == unique. There is no registry for ULA-C... > >>> Though it would be a cool idea, dynamically assigning addresses to >>> random components in a car where one actually needs to also then >>> maintain a registry of which components are where, will effectively mean >>> that there will be a DNS server too of sorts to map 'engine' to >>> 2001:db8:.....x and the left-mirror to 2001:db8:... Will be a lot of fun >>> to build I guess, but debugging that will be horrible and overly >>> complex. Then again, some times that is the fun in things right ;) >> >> The car on-board network requires usually real-time control guarantees, >> so having too much dynamics and several indirections/mappings is >> probably not so suitable. > > just don't pull the "Connexion by Boeing" model of every vehicle is > numbered in the exact same way :) from the exact same netblock... (see > preso from ietf plenary ~8yrs ago? or maybe 6 in Minneapolis?) > > -chris > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
