where a prefix belongs to a host, but it is unknown how the location
determination process knows/discovers such.
Even if each location request for every host address in a subnet returns the
exact same location value, one shouldn't assume that there is a single host
that owns the prefix/subnet.
What is your use case where a 3rd party would know that a host owns a
subnet? It seems the location requester is more likely to know the target
by a host address that is derived from some service/application interaction
with the target and the requester would have zero knowledge of the subnet
architecture.
-Marc-
On 10/7/09 11:12 AM, "Richard Barnes" <rbarnes@bbn.com> wrote:
> I think the level of knowledge/risk is about the same as for IP
> addresses in the IPv4 context.
>
> v4: Assign addresses to customer sites with the assumption that there
> will be a NAT and a network behind it.
>
> v6: Assign prefixes to customer sites with the assumption that hosts
> within the customer site will use addresses within that prefix.
>
> In either case, under the assumption that the customer network is
> reasonably small, the location of the customer site that was assigned
> the address/prefix is not a terrible estimate of a host that's visible
> as that address.
>
> --Richard
>
>
>
>
> Marc Linsner wrote:
>> Isn't this making a huge assumption from the location determination POV?
>> How does the LIS/LS know that a location request for a network prefix
>> applies to a single target? Is it assumed the resultant location
>> determination will understand the complete IP addressing scheme?
>>
>> -Marc-
>>
>>
>> On 10/6/09 8:42 PM, "Thomson, Martin" <Martin.Thomson@andrew.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I can't think of a reason to object to this. It has somewhat limited
>>> applicability in v4, but as you say, v6 addressing is a somewhat more
>>> liberal.
>>>
>>> Unless I hear arguments to the contrary, I'll include something like this in
>>> the next revision of the doc. I'm holding that update on the open issue.
>>>
>>> --Martin
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: geopriv-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:geopriv-bounces@ietf.org] On
>>>> Behalf Of Richard Barnes
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, 6 October 2009 9:53 PM
>>>> To: 'GEOPRIV'
>>>> Subject: [Geopriv] Add IP address prefixes in held-identity-extensions?
>>>>
>>>> Hey all,
>>>>
>>>> I'm at RIPE this week, and it's becoming increasingly clear that in the
>>>> IPv6 environment, it's going to be common for sites/customers to be
>>>> assigned a prefix (e.g., /56 to /64 seem to be common). To some
>>>> extent,
>>>> this logic extends down to hosts as well, since a single interface can
>>>> have multiple IPv6 addresses. Would it make sense to add a v4/v6
>>>> prefix
>>>> identifier type to the HELD identity extension?
>>>>
>>>> <device xmlns="urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:geopriv:held:id">
>>>> <ip-prefix v="4">192.1.0.0/16</ip-prefix>
>>>> <ip-prefix v="6">2001:DB8:1::/64</ip-prefix>
>>>> </device>
>>>>
>>>> --Richard
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Geopriv mailing list
>>>> Geopriv@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> --
>>> ------------------
>>> This message is for the designated recipient only and may
>>> contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
>>> If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
>>> immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of
>>> this email is prohibited.
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> --
>>> ------------------
>>> [mf2]
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Geopriv mailing list
>>> Geopriv@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Geopriv mailing list
> Geopriv@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
