[158156] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Adding GPS location to IPv6 header
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Adams)
Sat Nov 24 16:18:27 2012
In-Reply-To: <50ae13c5.b0eb440a.3c9b.ffffa9df@mx.google.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2012 13:18:08 -0800
From: John Adams <jna@retina.net>
To: Ammar Salih <ammar.salih@auis.edu.iq>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org list" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Don't conflate layer 5-7 needs with basic communication requirements. IP is
not the place for this sort of header.
This is not data that should be sent on every packet. It becomes redundant.
Not to mention the serious privacy concerns such a header brings up in the
protocol. You barely address this in your RFC. You write it away with a
wishy-washy "Oh err um, users will have the option to turn it off". That's
worked so well for opt-out advertising -- I'm sure it will work here.
If there's a place where I can go and vote this down / debate it away, tell
me where that is.
-j
On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Ammar Salih <ammar.salih@auis.edu.iq>wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
