Hello
One thing that intrigues me on your explanation is that at the same time
your mention "non-electrical items" you talk about traceability and
routing. How does routing works for non-electrical items that are not
communication devices nor are present on the Internet ?
Fernando
On 13/08/2024 03:02, Guangliang PAN wrote:
[Disclaimer: After 24 years services at APNIC secretariat, I have left
APNIC secretariat since this year. My opinions on this mailing list
are in my personal capacity and no longer represent APNIC secretariat. ]
---
Dear David,
I appreciate your understanding, explanations and suggestions. They
are very helpful.
I would like to explain a bit more on why using IPv6 for
non-electrical items and how it works. Sorry for the long email for
everyone.
Compare with other global unique identifiers, IPv6 is routable but
others are not routable. IPv6 makes verification and communication easier.
I am not against any other identifiers. It is up to each company to
choose which identifier to identify their goods. I’m just saying,
there is a need for routable ID in the IoT industry. The current
Internet runs on IPv4 and IPv6. IPv4 is exhausted and IPv6 is the
current best option.
Use the same example I mentioned, IPv6 has a key benefit on anti-fake.
Any factory can trace their products from out-of-factory transport to
sell by assigning IPv6 to their products. When a patient scans the QR
code, which is normally printed on the bottle of the medicine, it
looks up that IPv6 address and returns the information about that
medicine from the pharmaceutical factory. In the case of that medicine
has been polluted during the productive process, the patient will know
immediately and go for exchange. This is because the pharmaceutical
factory will respond to query about that medicine (IPv6 address) with
up-to-date information.
One /64 has 4 billions of 4 billions IPv6 addresses (/128). It is
impossible to guess which IPv6 addresses assigned to which products.
It is very difficult to make fake products with the same IPv6 address.
If someone bought a real product and makes fake copies, they cannot
sell the fake products, because at the time of sale, the shop will
know the real product has been sold. The factory will also know that
fake products have been made in which locations by the tracing system.
For another instance, Governments tried many ways to stop counterfeit
money, but it never stops. IPv6 will help with stopping counterfeit
money. If a note assigned an IPv6 and printed a unique code on the
note, when you use your mobile to scan the code, it will tell you the
value, year and number of that note. If it doesn’t match with the
note, you know it is a fake note. If someone makes multiple copies of
a note, a same note will be used in different location at the same
time, the system will detect the discrepancy.
Technically speaking, the IPv6 address is assigned to a node hosts a
page (URL/FTP/whatever) containing the information about a
non-electrical object. The IPv6 address is always connected (online)
and respond to any query from the Internet. From this point of view,
IPv6 address is not actually assigned to non-electrical item but to
the interface hosting the information on the Internet about that item.
My apologies if the initial policy proposal text caused confusions to
you and the community.
Thanks for your suggestion about revising RFC4291. I have reviewed
some RFCs related to IPv6.
RFC1881 - “IPv6 Address Allocation Management” created in 1995 defines
how IPv6 will be allocated - (Abstract : The IPv6 address space will
be managed by the IANA for the good of the Internet community, with
advice from the IAB and the IESG, by delegation to the regional
registries.) There is NO mention of IPv6 could not be used for
non-electrical items.
IANA started allocating IPv6 to RIRs in 1999.
RFC4291 - “IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture” created in 2006
provides guidance on how to use IPv6 in the networks. (Abstract: This
specification defines the addressing architecture of the IP Version 6
(IPv6) protocol. The document includes the IPv6 addressing model, text
representations of IPv6 addresses, definition of IPv6 unicast
addresses, anycast addresses, and multicast addresses, and an IPv6
node's required addresses.) There is NO mention of how to use IPv6 for
non-electrical items.
I am happy to work with you or anyone who interested in this matter to
revise RFC4291, or propose a new RFC to address this type of requirements.
The objective of this policy proposal is to fill the gap between the
IoT requirements and the IPv6 allocation policy. “Should we assign
IPv6 to non-electrical items” triggered interesting discussions.
Thanks to all for sharing your opinions.
I am arranging an Internet of Things (IoT) BoF at APNIC 58. There will
be interesting presentations about using IPv6 for IoT. The IoT BoF is
on Wed, 4, Sep 2024 18:00 to 19:00 (UTC +12:00). You are all welcome
to attend and preview the details from the link below.
https://conference.apnic.net/58/program/program/index.html#/day/6/internet-of-things-iot-bof/
Internet of Things should include everything not only electrical
devices but also non-electrical items. It is a real Internet of
everything. Your contributions will shape the future Internet.
See you all at APNIC 58!
Best regards,
Guangliang (Benny)
================
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* David Conrad via SIG-policy <[email protected]>
*Sent:* Thursday, 8 August 2024 6:43 AM
*To:* Wesley <[email protected]>
*Cc:* [email protected] <[email protected]>
*Subject:* [sig-policy] Re: prop-161-v001: Using IPv6 for Internet of
Things (IoT) -- correct version
Hi Wei,
Let me try a different approach…
Ignoring the (IMHO) technical, security/privacy, logistical,
political, and other infeasibilities, there is a procedural matter
with your proposal: RFC 4291 states "IPv6 addresses are 128-bit
identifiers for interfaces and sets of interfaces (where "interface"
is as defined in Section 2 of [IPV6]).” Section 2 of [IPV6] (RFC 2460)
defines “interface” as "a node's attachment to a link.” It also
defines “node” and “link” as: "a device that implements IPv6.” and "a
communication facility or medium over which nodes can communicate at
the link layer, i.e., the layer immediately below IPv6.” respectively.
As such, given it is impossible for a "non-electronic item” to
implement IPv6 and/or have any communication facility, it would seem
you would, at the very least, need to revise RFC 4291.
Clearly, the IETF, not APNIC’s policy forum, would be the appropriate
place for that redefinition to occur. If “IPv6 addresses” were
redefined by the IETF to include flat identifiers unrelated to being
used for network interfaces, the RIRs could create a global policy via
the processes at ICANN for the IANA Numbers function, after which the
IANA team would delegate additional resources to the RIRs for
subsequent allocation.
Regards,
-drc
On Aug 7, 2024, at 7:02 AM, Wesley <[email protected]> wrote:
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 [email protected]
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
