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

Adding GPS location to IPv6 header



On Nov 26, 2012, at 06:56 , "Carlos M. Martinez" <carlosm3011 at gmail.com> 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
> switch. In Spanish we have a very strong adjective for this kind of
> ideas: "p?simo". I couldn't find a similar one in English without using
> foul words :-)
> 

The rough translation of p?simo is "terrible". And it certainly applies here.

FYI.

Owen

> In any case, and as it already has been pointed out, I can imagine an
> upper layer protocol, similar to NTP that reports GPS coordinates. Come
> to think of it, if NTP could be extended this would fit in nicely as
> there are already lots of NTP nodes which already have GPS sensors.
> 
> Additionally, unless the proponents of this idea are expecting every
> router manufacturer to build GPS chips into their gear and us datacentre
> operators to drill holes on our roofs for the antennas, I don't see any
> real useful role for this extension header.
> 
> cheers!
> 
> ~Carlos
> 
> On 11/26/12 9:20 AM, Mohacsi Janos wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, 25 Nov 2012, Ammar Salih wrote:
>> 
>>> 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
>>> redundant.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 1- It does not have to be in every IPv6 header, only when there is
>>> location
>>> update.
>> 
>> It should not be in any IPv6 packet. It has to be in an upper layer
>> protocol.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 2- the host should have the option of not sending location updates.
>> 
>> In worst case. Host should have an option to sending location update -
>> probably not in IP headers, but upper layer protocol.
>> 
>>> 
>>> 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.
>> 
>> 
>> I suggest an upper layer protocol. Something like HTTP, TCP or UDP
>> option. The server can initiate a carry, and a client can decide to
>> answer with location information.
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>> 
>> 
>> I prefer application and at most the transport layer protocol extension.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> [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.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> 
>>> Ammar
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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!
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-add-location-to-ipv6-header/?include_t
>>> 
>>> ext=1
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> 
>>> Ammar Salih
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>