RE: Adding GPS location to IPv6 header

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.

2- the host should have the option of not sending location updates.

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.

2- Layer 7 will not be detected by layer 3 devices (routers) .. so
location-based service on layer-3 will not be possible.

Geographic-based layer 3 routing has been thoroughly discussed on the
IRTF RRG and just as thoroughly rejected. It's wholly inadequate as an
approximation for topographic locality within the network graph.

Uses of geolocation information at layer 3 are similar to uses of the
"evil bit."

Don't conflate layer 5-7 needs with basic communication requirements. IP is
not the place for this sort of header.

IP is the logical place for this kind of header, as this information
is node dependent, not application dependent.

As is the user's legal name and social security number. If it isn't
processed by the layer 3 protocols, if they don't use it for next hop
selection, then it doesn't belong at layer 3.

For example, in the case of an anycasted service, the source IP
address does not uniquely identify where the source came from.

Given appropriate construction of the layer 4 protocol, nothing stops
an anycasted service from responding with a unicast IP address and
using the unicast address during subsequent communication. An anycast
service has far better mechanisms available to identify the responding
server than stuffing a GPS header in the layer 3 packet.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

> 2- Layer 7 will not be detected by layer 3 devices (routers) .. so
> location-based service on layer-3 will not be possible.

Geographic-based layer 3 routing has been thoroughly discussed on the
IRTF RRG and just as thoroughly rejected. It's wholly inadequate as an
approximation for topographic locality within the network graph.

If relativistic latency component is measurable, that is information
useful for mutual time of flight triangulation. WGS84 just gives you
a convenient hinge to hang your information on.

Uses of geolocation information at layer 3 are similar to uses of the
"evil bit."

You're correct. It's for layer 2 strictly.

Your proposal doesn't even give people a way to encrypt their location
data; By moving geodata to a portion of the protocol which is not covered
by commonly used encryption methods (i.e. HTTPS, which is up a few layers
in the stack) people can't be protected should this data be monitored by a
malicious intermediary. Think: Syria, China, Iran, or any other government
which will kill you for your words online.

Application protocols sending GPS data under say, HTTPS protect the end
user from revealing their location to anyone on their path, forcing an
intermediary to look up the IP in a common geo database which will be
mostly inaccurate in pinpointing users, and hopefully will save lives.

Companies like Twitter, Facebook, and some parts of google are going HTTPS
by default for this very reason.

This proposal is dead, you don't have the sense to lie down.

Et al,

There is one simple question that needs to be asked!

Ammar Salih @ ammar.salih@auis.edu.iq Are you a terrorist?

Ephesians 4:32 & Cheers!!!

A password is like a... toothbrush ;^)
Choose a good one, change it regularly and don't share it.

WHAT???

Is this the extent to which This-List has DEGENERATED???

How dare you make such a horrendous accusation Sir?

You may NOT like what OP has proposed. I don't either for more reasons than one!

However, YOU are neither qualified NOR authorised to ask such an appallingly INSENSITIVE Question!

Your so called "Freedom-of-Speech" DOES NOT translate to Character-Assasination on this or any other forum!!

Follow me you ipdog? Find you own bitch to abuse. Don't do it here!!

./Randy

Geographic-based layer 3 routing has been thoroughly discussed on the
IRTF RRG and just as thoroughly rejected. It's wholly inadequate as an
approximation for topographic locality within the network graph.

Nevertheless, there are some applications in which it might have some merit.
If there is even one such application, then it is sensible to have the required
bits set aside, so there can be an extension in the limited cases
where it is required.

Don't conflate layer 5-7 needs with basic communication requirements. IP

IP is the logical place for this kind of header, as this information
is node dependent, not application dependent.

As is the user's legal name and social security number. If it isn't
processed by the layer 3 protocols, if they don't use it for next hop
selection, then it doesn't belong at layer 3.

An extension header at Layer 3 containing this information should be just fine.
Or rather, an extension, allowing a reference to a lookup service for
that information
to be placed in IP headers, for network management should be just fine.

The actual underlying plaintext PII best be protected with IPsec and
additional measures, but that is the network implementor's
responsibility. Not all Layer 3 headers have to influence path
selection.

There _ARE_ headers for strictly network management purposes.

Examples would include the IP TOS header; Route record extensions;
Hop limit; Timestamp.

The IP TOS header identifies a value, which can be used to prioritize
some packets;
similarly, a network operator might have a need to prioritize
packets with a certain
geographical origin at L3, or grant certain throughput and
performance characteristics
based on source region, to ensure a degree of fairness with their application.

For example, in the case of an anycasted service, the source IP
address does not uniquely identify where the source came from.

Given appropriate construction of the layer 4 protocol, nothing stops
an anycasted service from responding with a unicast IP address and

They generally will not. The mechanism of operation of an anycasted
service is there are a small number of unicast addresses, with routes
announced from various different points.

If each region had its own unicast IP, it would just be a normal
DNS-balanced service.

Therefore, the same unicast IP address may be used from multiple regions,
for example, the DNS servers in different regions may have identical
IP addresses.

For network management purposes, on the End user side, it would be useful
in some cases, for the IP header of DNS and HTTP response packets,
to identify which "node" or site is responding;
even if this cannot be indicated in the IP address fields.

It may help identify, if an issue accessing an any casted service is related to
instability of which route is preferred (E.g. thrashing of the
end user's site selection);
if there is an extension option available for Recording or Tagging
packets with a source ID,

a situation, in which the Record Route IP extension is not a viable option.

While most of the people are trying to save the internet from any form of "goverment" and let it be free, this would be like shooting yourself in the foot.
This would be great for troubleshooting things...I agree, but other than that it would create a whole new plethora of privacy concerns.

We use the internet to express ideas either through our real life names or through alter-egos that give us anonymity and let us say things we wouldn't dare otherwise.
GPS data would just destroy any sort of anonymity that is left on the NET.
I can see big companies paying large sums for this sort of info...imagine google, facebook,etc having access to this kind of data.

"the host should have the option of not sending location updates."
Lets face it...how many people really know what a IP is, what it can do and what you can turn off or on?
Other than the IT sector, most other people do not care and they just plug-and-play.
This would just create a window through which you could implement such a feature and throw out most security concerns, because the people that actually care understand the feature and can turn it off...the masses are not so lucky and they get the BIG BROTHER treatment.

GPS header would have the same effect on IPv6 implementation as CGN.
While CGN and GPS data have the potential to make alot of cash for the ISP who implements it...we don't really want that in our lives and it would deter the customers from switching to IPv6 even more.

IMHO the Internet should just be free and offer full anonymity, else it would just come crashing down on our heads.

Your proposal doesn't even give people a way to encrypt their location
data; By moving geodata to a portion of the protocol which is not covered

It's not possible to hide location. Anonymity and efficient transport
don't mix. This will become even more so at TBit/s transport rates.

That's no problem, as you can use e.g. mix networks to provide strong
anonymity for those who need at a higher layer.

The sooner everbody realizes this, the sooner we can move on.

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.

Just for redundancy's sake: No, L3 is **not** the place for this kind of
information. L3 is supposed to be simple, easy to implement, fast to
switch. In Spanish we have a very strong adjective for this kind of
ideas: "p�simo". I couldn't find a similar one in English without using
foul words :slight_smile:

In any case, and as it already has been pointed out, I can imagine an
upper layer protocol, similar to NTP that reports GPS coordinates. Come
to think of it, if NTP could be extended this would fit in nicely as
there are already lots of NTP nodes which already have GPS sensors.

Additionally, unless the proponents of this idea are expecting every
router manufacturer to build GPS chips into their gear and us datacentre
operators to drill holes on our roofs for the antennas, I don't see any
real useful role for this extension header.

cheers!

~Carlos

Just for redundancy's sake: No, L3 is **not** the place for this kind of
information. L3 is supposed to be simple, easy to implement, fast to

I agree. You need to put it into L2, and the core usage would
be for wireless meshes. Consider cases like Serval or cjdns,
which run on Android headsets and equivalent embeddeds.
Technically you wouldn't need GPS everywhere if you could
do ~m scale time domain reflectometry in free space.
It is possible to build a local contiguous map via
mutual time of flight triangulation (actually, just visibility
gives you a very good hint).

Another such application could be

(the realtime precision tracking problem has been solved recently).

switch. In Spanish we have a very strong adjective for this kind of
ideas: "p�simo". I couldn't find a similar one in English without using
foul words :slight_smile:

In any case, and as it already has been pointed out, I can imagine an
upper layer protocol, similar to NTP that reports GPS coordinates. Come
to think of it, if NTP could be extended this would fit in nicely as
there are already lots of NTP nodes which already have GPS sensors.

Can you see any good uses for this? Area fencing, for games,
maybe. I don't see why you couldn't just bind gpsd to port
on a public IP, same as GPS sharing over WLAN tethering is
done. So it's basically a solved problem, no need for RFC
drafts.

Additionally, unless the proponents of this idea are expecting every
router manufacturer to build GPS chips into their gear and us datacentre
operators to drill holes on our roofs for the antennas, I don't see any

Some routers *are* already on the roofs. Or on towers.
Or in LEO. Visibility is pretty good once you're
above few 10 km, and weather is just perfect in
orbit. The only storms are of the proton particle
variety.

Just for redundancy's sake: No, L3 is **not** the place for this kind of
information. L3 is supposed to be simple, easy to implement, fast to
switch. In Spanish we have a very strong adjective for this kind of
ideas: "pésimo". I couldn't find a similar one in English without using
foul words :slight_smile:

The rough translation of pésimo is "terrible". And it certainly applies here.

FYI.

Owen

Actually, I think you just articulated the first use for Ammar's idea
that's not either wrong, absurd on its face or obviously better
handled at a different location within the protocol stack.

Suppose you have a large single-owner mesh network, such as a folks
walking around with cell phones. If you want them to have a stable
layer 3 address (and you do) then you're handling what amounts to /128
routes for tens of millions of devices. If you can guarantee that any
packet *to* that address also contains a rough geographic location
then you can discard any routes internally once they're more than a
short geographic distance from the origin and route on the geography
until you're close enough to find a specific /128 route. Tens of
millions of routes is no problem if no single router needs to know
more than a few thousand of them.

By putting geographic location at layer 3, you're also handling it end
to end which means you don't need a stateful border device to track
the current location of all of those /128 routes. The device itself
doesn't need to add location if it doesn't have the data; it's good
enough for the receiving tower to attach a rough location.

There are some assumptions in this model which are problematic. Key ones are:

1. Only valid as an interior gateway protocol (IGP). Geographic
routing has been proven false for an EGP because it induces traffic to
cross links for which neither source nor destination has permitted
access.

2. Requires the application at the landed end to copy the IP option
information into the outbound packets as well. This behavior is not
presently guaranteed.

3. Assumes that the device will originate communication, receiving
only replies from the landed end, or will use some intermediary to
communicate current geographic information if inbound origination is
required.

At any rate, I think that discussion of adding a geographic option
header to IPv6 should be tied up in the discussion of a routing
protocol which critically depends on its presence and can't reasonably
be built another way. Otherwise when a needful use case finally comes
along, you'll discover that the option's rules of operation don't
adequately enable it.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

This also naively assumes that wireless network topology correlates with
geographic location. Any radio engineer (or cell phone user) can explain
why that doesn't work.

The utility of this is somewhat moderated by limited geographical
mobility while a phone's active in a single session. One rarely
drives from San Francisco to LA typing all the way on their smartphone
data connection, for example.

To the extent that you may apply IP ranges to wider geographical
areas, and limit the search space to a few % of the total, beyond
which devices get a new address pushed as they travel, this is
entirely manageable without the new header.

Some services dislike the endpoint renumbering like that, and some
connections go kerfluey, but most web based activities handle the
endpoint getting a new IP just fine; this is what cookies are for.
Your SSH connections will remind you that you should be using screen,
or not type and drive. But the CHP and road hazards will already do
that.

Eventually being allowed to use air-to-ground cell data on airliners
will be slightly worse, but again, most protocols shrug at this
problem.

-george

Serval has about 200 m line of sight range. In general
LoS visibility e.g. with pole-mounted directional
Ubiquity gear is always as the crow flies.

No. It assumes that the /128 route propagates far enough that every
router (read: radio tower) operated by the service provider within the
rough geographic locality has that route so that wherever the packet
lands in the general area, it can make its way to the origin router
currently talking to the device. It makes no assumptions about the
particular path or paths between those two routers which could be
terrestrial radio, satellite, wired or even a VPN across who knows
what Internet path. It does set a requirement on the network
architecture that at least one such path must exist: network
partitions appear deadly to this architecture.

I'm not saying this is a good idea. I'm just saying it's a legitimate
topic for research and investigation which, if it shows any promise,
would support the addition of a geolocation option header to IPv6's
layer 3. By contrast, Ammar's other rationale for why to put it there
(common interest at layer 7) aren't legitimate reasons for adding data
to layer 3.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

That's true to a limited extent today.

It's not likely to remain true.

(No, it won't be the driver typing on their smartphone data connection, but
it will be the busload or high-speed trainload of people typing, gaming, etc.
all the way from SF to LA and/or other non-interactive data usages that are
becoming more and more prevalent.

Further, the speed of handoffs will have to get faster and the address stability
area larger as that starts to include things like airplanes.

Owen

Right, but GPS location in these scenarios is not helpful. Because
the network provider has plenty of evidence you're on the move - your
cell location starts hopping at significant speeds, it's kind of
obvious.

You can either handle this with L3/4 stuff - painfully, but one can
establish a regional forwarder net which is a downwards-looking
default in each region, to handle L3 traffic for nodes that went off
the reservation. Or you can handle this at L5 or above, in which case
this is not our problem per se; it's the device and consumer services'
website or central services site, or P2P type protocols designers
problem to handle IP address flips etc. Which, frankly, already is
being handled (most mobile users, anyone who uses WiFi in multiple
locations + a phone data connection, etc). It's not totally seamless,
but it works, and it's good enough.

In either case, knowing the GPS location of the phone or device is not
relevant to handling the problem or detecting it, beyond what the cell
site data gives you naturally.

As you already have to support devices hopping IPs, adding network foo
(with evident significant downsides) which does not make that hopping
IPs problem go away seems like it's a no-answer.