Subject: IPv6 modification suggestion

From: "Ammar Salih" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:52:15 +0300

Hello Dears,

I would like to suggest adding GPS coordinates to IPv6 header, as you know
the current way of determining the location of the IP address is through the
IP registration, which is not very accurate as it depends on how the ISP
registers it's IP subnets, which is normally done based on country/city.

Getting more accurate locations will enhance many services provided by the
web, like targeted commercials (for example, I can get Ads regarding
restaurants available in my neighborhood instead of all restaurants in the
city), another good example would be webpage's language, my language will be
detected more accurately based on my exact area rather than my countery, as
there are many countries with more than one popular language.

Maps, navigation, emergency calls and many other services will also get
enhanced with accurate locations.

I hope you will find my suggestion beneficial, and looking forward to
hearing from you.

Best, 

Ammar Salih | B.Sc.Eng, CCNA-S, CCVP, CCIE-V written

Technical Lead - Voice and Data Support Services

Mob: +964 (0) 770 533 0306  

Office: +964 (0) 53 511 2020  -  Ext. 2221

Email:  <mailto:[email-masked]> [email-masked]

The American University of Iraq - Sulaimani

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 16:58:17 -0200

I would not support to add GPS coordinates to the IPv6 header. I think
it violates the user privacy.

	As a user, I sometimes want to disclosure my position, but only to
services that I know and I want to. I wouldn't want to do it
automatically to the whole Internet.

	I would give more counter arguments to some of the advantages that you
mentioned, but I think privacy is the most important.

Regards
as

On 10/10/2012 12:52, Ammar Salih wrote:
> Hello Dears,
> 
>  
> 
> I would like to suggest adding GPS coordinates to IPv6 header, as you
> know the current way of determining the location of the IP address is
> through the IP registration, which is not very accurate as it depends on
> how the ISP registers it’s IP subnets, which is normally done based on
> country/city.
> 
>  
> 
> Getting more accurate locations will enhance many services provided by
> the web, like targeted commercials (for example, I can get Ads regarding
> restaurants available in my neighborhood instead of all restaurants in
> the city), another good example would be webpage’s language, my language
> will be detected more accurately based on my exact area rather than my
> countery, as there are many countries with more than one popular language.
> 
>  
> 
> *Ammar Salih *|***B.Sc.Eng, CCNA-S, CCVP, CCIE-V written*
> 
> *Mob*: +964 (0) 770 533 0306 
> 
> *Office*: +964 (0) 53 511 2020  -  Ext. 2221
> 
> *Email*:[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
> 
> *The American University of Iraq – Sulaimani*
> 
> * *
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: George Mitchell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 20:05:20 -0400

On 10/10/12 10:52, Ammar Salih wrote:
> **

Sensational idea.  Don't forget to leave space for the cryptographic
signature to forestall forgery.  I look forward to seeing tens of
packets following this standard over the next hundred years.
-- George Mitchell

---

From: SM <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 17:52:30 -0700

Hi Ammar,
At 07:52 10-10-2012, Ammar Salih wrote:
>I would like to suggest adding GPS coordinates to IPv6 header, as 
>you know the current way of determining the location of the IP 
>address is through the IP registration, which is not very accurate 
>as it depends on how the ISP registers it's IP subnets, which is 
>normally done based on country/city.

Please see the work of the GEOPRIV WG ( 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/charter/ ).

>Getting more accurate locations will enhance many services provided 
>by the web, like targeted commercials (for example, I can get Ads 
>regarding restaurants available in my neighborhood instead of all 
>restaurants in the city), another good example would be webpage's 
>language, my language will be detected more accurately based on my 
>exact area rather than my countery, as there are many countries with 
>more than one popular language.
>
>Maps, navigation, emergency calls and many other services will also 
>get enhanced with accurate locations.

The above are arguments in favor of such a functionality.  What are 
the disadvantages?

Regards,
-sm

---

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2012 20:37:24 -0700

Ammar,

On Oct 10, 2012, at 7:52 AM, Ammar Salih wrote:

> Hello Dears,
>  
> I would like to suggest adding GPS coordinates to IPv6 header, as you know the current way of determining the location of the IP address is through the IP registration, which is not very accurate as it depends on how the ISP registers it’s IP subnets, which is normally done based on country/city.

I agree with you that IP addresses are not very reliable as a means of determining geographic location.  That said, I don't think it is a good idea to add GPS position to every IPv6 header.  It would add a lot of overhead, there are many privacy related issues (as others have pointed out), it doesn't need to be in every packet.  An alternative would be to create a application layer protocols that could request and send GPS positions.  That is a better way to to deal with the privacy issues and the GPS position would only need to be sent when desired or when requested.

The GEOPRIV working group is doing some work in this area.  See:

  http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/geopriv/charter/

Bob

>  
> Getting more accurate locations will enhance many services provided by the web, like targeted commercials (for example, I can get Ads regarding restaurants available in my neighborhood instead of all restaurants in the city), another good example would be webpage’s language, my language will be detected more accurately based on my exact area rather than my countery, as there are many countries with more than one popular language.
>  
> Maps, navigation, emergency calls and many other services will also get enhanced with accurate locations.
>  
> I hope you will find my suggestion beneficial, and looking forward to hearing from you.
>  
>  
> Best,
>  
> Email: [email-masked]
> The American University of Iraq – Sulaimani
>  
>

---

From: "Ammar Salih" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 11:40:58 +0300

Hello Bob,

> That said, I don't think it is a good idea to add GPS position to every
IPv6 header.  It would add a lot of overhead.

It does not have to be in every IPv6 header, only when there is location
update, also it can be included in the first header (just like RTP and cRTP)

> there are many privacy related issues (as others have pointed out).

This can be set manually in case of any privacy concerns, just like other
header's information like IP address.

> An alternative would be to create a application layer protocols that could
request and send GPS positions.  

Sounds awesom, but in this case all webpages, phone applications, server
side scripting languages ... etc have to be modified to support the new
application protocol. Not mensioning that layer 3 devices (like routers)
won't be able to support the feature, let's say in the feature you want to
do dynamic routing based on geo location.

In anycase, I still feel quite interested about the new layer 7 protocol,
will try to go through the GEOPRIV documentation this weekend in order to
get more details.

Thank you for your kind response,
Ammar

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Hinden [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 6:37 AM
To: Ammar Salih
Cc: Bob Hinden; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IPv6 modification suggestion

Ammar,

I agree with you that IP addresses are not very reliable as a means of
determining geographic location.  That said, I don't think it is a good idea
to add GPS position to every IPv6 header.  It would add a lot of overhead,
there are many privacy related issues (as others have pointed out), it
doesn't need to be in every packet.  An alternative would be to create a
application layer protocols that could request and send GPS positions.  That
is a better way to to deal with the privacy issues and the GPS position
would only need to be sent when desired or when requested.

Bob

hearing from you.
>  
>  
> Best,
>  
> Ammar Salih | B.Sc.Eng, CCNA-S, CCVP, CCIE-V written Technical Lead - 
> Voice and Data Support Services
>

---

From: "Ammar Salih" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 23:03:32 +0300

Hello everyone, I had a brief look at GEOPRIV and I was very much impressed,
There has been so much work done by this amazing group!

At the same time, I would like to raise my concern regarding the http
location request which will not be detected by layer-3 devices (Routers), I
am anticipating that in the future, GPS capability will be added to the
router itself (just like smart phones) and packet marking and classification
based on geo-location will be required.

QoS, firewall and routing based on geo-location will be highly demanded when
mobile routers move from one geo-location to another which has different
regulations/electronic laws.

Here is an example, if your router is within city-X and this city has very
good electronic and copyright laws, then users will have relaxed network
security settings, but what if the very same router moved to city-Y which
according to its law, certain websites should be blocked (like facebook in
china for example) .. these rules based on geographic location won't be
feasible unless the mobile router has a GPS and can read/write coordinates
to layer-3 packets.

Best,
Ammar

-----Original Message-----
From: Ammar Salih [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:41 AM
To: 'Bob Hinden'
Cc: [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: IPv6 modification suggestion

Hello Bob,

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Hinden [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2012 6:37 AM
To: Ammar Salih
Cc: Bob Hinden; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: IPv6 modification suggestion

Ammar,

Bob

hearing from you.

---

From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:50:30 -0500

I don't see any of this as being remotely desirable, as part of IETF standards.

If a router is to be installed in a repressive country, then it is certainly possible to have whatever layer 3-7 filters implemented in that router, as just such filters are implemented in "firewalls." Or, if an Internet site wants to serve customers with special location-based apps, they can certainly do so without having to impact the IETF standards (either by requiring GPS input into the app, or by asking the user to provide his location).

Or, if a group wants to develop a location-based routing protocol, they can certainly do so, without forcing this information to impact IETF standards.

It just seems unwise, to say the least, to build this feature directly into layer 3 or 4 protocols, where it becomes ubiquitous, and where the user is not in control of it.

Bert

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ammar Salih
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 4:04 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: IPv6 modification suggestion

Best,
Ammar

---

From: Oliver <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 21:25:50 +0200

> based on geo-location will be required.

quite a big assumption to make, whom will require this, and more to the point, 
how does that need in any way legitimise putting GPS coordinates in a packet 
header?

> feasible unless the mobile router has a GPS and can read/write coordinates

Rather than comment on this immediately, I will first introduce the context of 
a quote you have made further down.

> header's information like IP address.

If you can arbitrarily alter the coordinates, the copyright enforcement aspect 
that you are proposing is violated. If you wish to declare exceptions where it 
cannot be altered, the privacy assurance is violated.

In any case, it loses all value at the nexthop; there will be absolutely 
nothing preventing another router from mangling the value, whether 
intentionally or due to accidental corruption. Not to mention someone 
elsewhere simply firing out a packet spoofing your source address.

A proposal such as this goes far beyond the intended scope of IPv6; if GPS 
coordinates are acceptable, where shall we go next? Social Security numbers? 
Reductio ad absurdum.

Regards,
Oliver

---

From: Arturo Servin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:59:00 -0200

Ammar

	Agree with Albert.

	You are trying to add capabilities in the wrong layer.

Regards,
as

---

From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:50:33 -0500

> I remember few years ago when there were
> sanctions on Iraq, people used to download software updates through
> VSAT as
> their IP address shows Germany or Netherlands.

But I'm suggesting to you that most people in the IETF consider that to be a "feature," not a "bug." If you wanted to take a consensus within the IETF, I would bet that most would not want to facilitate the efforts of a couple of well-known regimes today, to isolate their citizens from the Internet. If, with today's protocols, these efforts are less than 100 percent effective, I'm suggesting most people would consider that to be a "good thing."

> I am suggesting to make locations more accurate and controlable through
> OS
> and network devices, exactly like IP addressess (user can change it's
> IP
> address and router can also modify the header information in case it's
> required).

Since you mention IP addresses, we have "privacy addresses" in IPv6 for exactly this reason. Many feel that disclosing even something as seemingly innocuous as your real MAC address, in IPv6 SLAAC, could be problematic, so it is no longer mandatory to do so.

So what I'm trying to get across is, these concerns are hardly new to the IETF.

Bert

---

From: "Manfredi, Albert E" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:34:54 -0500

> It's not about supporting dictatorial regimes in isolating their
> citizens
> from the internet,

Interesting how politics manages to enter into everything.

It doesn't matter what the original intent might have been. Such schemes would immediately facilitate all manner of control that could, and undoubtedly would, easily be abused. Therefore, if precise location is to be provided, this is best done in a way that can be switched off by the users. At the application layer, for example.

In the US, this same discussion occurred with respect to having GPS location provided by cell phones. Of course the intent was personal safety (e.g. location of individual if he dialed 911, the emergency number in the US). However the feature could also easily be abused. Hence the debate. Users should be allowed control over that feature.

> It's about implementing regulations, for example,
> certain
> regions does not allow VoIP calls over GSM/GPRS network.

How is this a problem? If a phone is attempting to make a VoIP call and send it through a cell tower that doesn't permit it, the call is dropped. If the user can walk a few minutes to be within range of a cell tower that permits VoIP, that should be allowed. Cell coverage is not wide enough to make an issue of this. And, whatever cell service provider doesn't like VoIP would be free to not allow VoIP on that service provider's towers.

> And it's not only filtering and restrictions, location-based Bandwidth
> Management could mean (for the sake of example) you assign Bandwidth
> based
> on area population rather than router's uplink.

I'm not sure what this means. Are you suggesting that if an individual ISP decides to upgrade his network, the government could come in and prevent him from offering the extra bandwidth, based on the location of specific users? I'm sorry, but again going to suggest that application layer solutions, e.g. configuration settings by the ISP on each of its routers, would best be used in this case too.

Whether or not there are sound, legitimate reasons to implement such precise user location solutions, this must not be done in such a way that it becomes so intrinsic to IPv6 that user control of the feature becomes necessarily removed. In my opinion, of course.

Bert

---

From: "Ammar Salih" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 20:26:23 +0300

Hello Albert,

> If a router is to be installed in a repressive country, then it is
certainly possible to have whatever layer 3-7 filters implemented in that
router, as just such filters are implemented in "firewalls." Or, if an
Internet site wants to serve customers with special location-based apps,
they can certainly do so without having to impact the IETF standards (either
by requiring GPS input into the app, or by asking the user to provide his
location).

How would you know if a mobile router crossed the city or country boarders,
so you can change the "firewall" rules? it could be very short distance in
terms of physical locations and defiantly won't be reflected on topology.
and it's not about firewalls in repressive countries, it's about
classification and marking where you can implement location-based policies
like QoS, ACL, routing .. etc.

> It just seems unwise, to say the least, to build this feature directly
into layer 3 or 4 protocols, where it becomes ubiquitous, and where the user
is not in control of it.

Today locations are assigned to IP addresses without user awareness or
control, everytime I do ip-lookup query I find myself in a different city
because I am connected to a different ISP which has it's IP subnet
registered to a different area. I remember few years ago when there were
sanctions on Iraq, people used to download software updates through VSAT as
their IP address shows Germany or Netherlands.

I am suggesting to make locations more accurate and controlable through OS
and network devices, exactly like IP addressess (user can change it's IP
address and router can also modify the header information in case it's
required).

> Or, if a group wants to develop a location-based routing protocol, they
can certainly do so, without forcing this information to impact IETF
standards.

I totally understand, appreciate and highly recognize your efforts to
safeguard IETF standards, i wish you guys the best of luck and looking
forward to see more promissing projects. 

Thank you,
Ammar

-----Original Message-----
From: Manfredi, Albert E [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 11:51 PM
To: Ammar Salih; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: IPv6 modification suggestion

I don't see any of this as being remotely desirable, as part of IETF
standards.

If a router is to be installed in a repressive country, then it is certainly
possible to have whatever layer 3-7 filters implemented in that router, as
just such filters are implemented in "firewalls." Or, if an Internet site
wants to serve customers with special location-based apps, they can
certainly do so without having to impact the IETF standards (either by
requiring GPS input into the app, or by asking the user to provide his
location).

Or, if a group wants to develop a location-based routing protocol, they can
certainly do so, without forcing this information to impact IETF standards.

It just seems unwise, to say the least, to build this feature directly into
layer 3 or 4 protocols, where it becomes ubiquitous, and where the user is
not in control of it.

Bert

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Ammar Salih
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2012 4:04 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: IPv6 modification suggestion

Best,
Ammar

---

From: "Ammar Salih" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 00:06:54 +0300

> But I'm suggesting to you that most people in the IETF consider that to be
> a "feature," not a "bug." If you wanted to take a consensus within the
> IETF, I would bet that most would not want to facilitate the efforts of a 
> couple of well-known regimes today, to isolate their citizens from the 
> Internet. If, with today's protocols, these efforts are less than 100 
> percent effective, I'm suggesting most people would consider that to be a 
> "good thing."

It's not about supporting dictatorial regimes in isolating their citizens
from the internet, It's about implementing regulations, for example, certain
regions does not allow VoIP calls over GSM/GPRS network.

And it's not only filtering and restrictions, location-based Bandwidth
Management could mean (for the sake of example) you assign Bandwidth based
on area population rather than router's uplink.

Many applications will be supporting the feature differently (like
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6442 ), then one day it will be much easier to
unify them and have the feature in the IP header.

> Since you mention IP addresses, we have "privacy addresses" in IPv6 for 
> exactly this reason. Many feel that disclosing even something as seemingly

> innocuous as your real MAC address, in IPv6 SLAAC, could be problematic,
so 
> it is no longer mandatory to do so.

I don't see why "privacy addresses" is mentioned here, I am 100% with users
privacy and suggesting that they have more control over a more accurate
details (locations)... such details that they are not allowed to control in
the current setup.

Thank you,
Ammar

---

From: "Ammar Salih" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2012 01:18:54 +0300

> this is best done in a way that can be switched off by the users. At the
application layer.

I totally agree, but again, application layer will be limited to application
servers. Network devices won't be able to understand the feature.

> How is this a problem? If a phone is attempting to make a VoIP call and
send it through a cell tower 
> that doesn't permit it, the call is dropped. If the user can walk a few
minutes to be within range of a 
> cell tower that permits VoIP, that should be allowed. Cell coverage is not
wide enough to make an issue 
> of this. And, whatever cell service provider doesn't like VoIP would be
free to not allow VoIP on that 
> service provider's towers.

It does not allow VoIP calls according to "operation license" which is based
on city, state or region regulations .. my suggestion is that the tower
moves not the user.. search for mobile BTS.

It happens in certain occasions where hundreds of thousands of people head
to the same area at the same time to attend some sort of event, so operators
move mobile BTSs to the location of the event for a day or two... in  this
case the operator needs to put configuration that reflects the agreement
with the state/city or region .. it could be much easier if geo-location is
involved in the game, not at the user's end but only between routers.

> I'm not sure what this means. Are you suggesting that if an individual ISP
decides to upgrade his 
> network, the government could come in and prevent him from offering the
extra bandwidth, based on the 
> location of specific users? I'm sorry, but again going to suggest that
application layer solutions, e.g. 
> configuration settings by the ISP on each of its routers, would best be
used in this case too.

Nope, I am assuming that the operator could manage bandwidth based on
estimated population, static configuration on the router would be ideal if
the router is fixed, but what if the router is mobile.

Ammar

---

From: George Mitchell <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 20:32:27 -0400

On 10/19/12 17:06, Ammar Salih wrote:
>>[...]
> [...]
You would probably have more success implementing a regulation that
everybody be healthy and prosperous.             -- George Mitchell

---

From: Jon Steen <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 22:24:45 -0400

Agreed! I know very well of customer ISPs and large independent enterprise network customers that one, would not accept this and two, since they have their own address space this would FAIL!

Sent from my iPhone