RE: Adding GPS location to IPv6 header

[Mohacsi Janos <mohacsi () niif hu>]

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 () auis edu iq]
> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2012 3:00 PM
> To: 'nanog () 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