Subject: Re: RFID in V6?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 16:33:09 +0900

>Good to hear an architecture/planning process is in progress.
>
>For the dumb ic-tags, having a mapping could still be useful for some people. In
>a previous work context, they discussed the 'tag all cans of soup' model, and
>wanted to present a view where these tagged devices asserted as IP addressable
>objects via some other box. This means you can know the RFID for a class of
>objects, and effectively 'ping' them to find where there is a smarter box which
>knows about them. Doing it in applications space implies restricting yourself to
>that application-space model of what behaviours you want, while doing it in an
>IP address namespace might be more general
>
>I didn't realize the tags now exceeded 128bits. That also implies the reverse
>mapping function: embed all IPv6 128bit addresses as a sub-set of the bigger
>footprint RFID. Then, you can make more complex RF equipment which is a computer
>but it responds for a legal RFID on an RFID scanner in that RF space. That might
>require IANA or somebody to ask the RFID agencies for a prefix in 256bit space
>which can reserve the 128bits under there for IPv6.

	it seems that there has to be much debates, but anyways...

	i don't think it wise to make direct mapping between RFID and IPv6.
	using RFID for random-number-cookie for IPv6 address (like EUI64) is
	okay, but anything beyond that looks unwise to me.

itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------