Hi
Allocating IPv6 to non-electronic devices just doesn't make sense
because it was never meant to be used other than to devices that route
and communicate to the internet or have any relationship with Internet
communication. There are already other means to allocate identification
to devices of all kinds that seem to work well.
I fail to see where RPKI will play a role in this context if these
sources will never be seen announced to the Internet.
When you talk about "end-to-end transparency of the network" how does
that work if these addresses will never been seen on any network as they
are non-electronic ?
Am I understanding correctly, but there is a suggestion to use NAT for
IPv6 ? Such a controversial thing and again, where does it fit if
non-electronic devices will never be connected to the internet ?
Fernando
On 07/08/2024 11:02, Wesley wrote:
Hi Jonathan
This is Wei WANG, the co-proposer of prop-161-v001.
Thank you for sharing your expertise. I'd like to clarify the rational
of the proposal: we aim to innovate within the current policy
framework by expanding the use of IPv6 addresses, without altering the
underlying IPv6 technology stack.
Allocating IPv6 addresses to non-electronic items, is a
straightforward simplied expression of binding a unique IPv6 address
to each data object of non-electronic item.
It is reasonable to have a specific domain name printed onto a trade
mark, to assist consumers in obtaining the relevant product
information. This can be regarded as assigning a domain name to a
non-electronic item.
Similarly, our proposal is to directly use the IPv6 address behind the
domain name as the primary ID to routing the user query to the
exclusive data object page of the corresponding item.
However, Using IPv6 addresses as the item identifers doesn't mean
replacing other identification schemes. Actually, in practice, IPv6
addresses could be generated by hashing the upper layer semantic ID to
the interface ID/postfix 64 bits.
Introducing IPv6 addresses as the Item ID sets up an effective
technical barrier to the product counterfeiters:
1. The ID owner is also the IP owner, ensuring that query traffic
is directed to the correct destination through BGP broadcasting.
2. Authenticity is ensured by existing security measures such as
RPKI (Resource Public Key Infrastructure) and CGA (Cryptographically
Generated Addresses).
3. Traceability is enhanced by the end-to-end transparency of the
network, providing clear location information for both the source and
destination.
4. Flexibility is achieved as IP address administrators can use
techniques like Layer 3 NAT, traffic scheduling, or Layer 7 switching
to direct access requests to any arbitrary IT system, ensuring
seamless collaboration with upper layer identification schemes .
In summary, while it is theoretically possible to assign an IPv6
address to every grain of sand in the world, in practice, this is
unnecessary and impractical for natural sand found in deserts or on
beaches. However, once sand is packaged or transformed into a
commercial product, it may require an IPv6 address for identification
and to provide access to the item's corresponding data object.
Best,
Wei WANG
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
