[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Adding GPS location to IPv6 header

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


1- It does not have to be in every IPv6 header, only when there is location

2- the host should have the option of not sending location updates.

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.





> 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.

[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.







From: Ammar Salih [mailto:ammar.salih at auis.edu.iq] 
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 3:00 PM
To: 'nanog at 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!





Ammar Salih