INTERNET-DRAFT John Mangione Competitive Computing Title: GPS^IP Expiration Date: 12-31-96 filename: draft-mangione-ipv6-gps-alt-00.txt Status of This Memo: This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.'' To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the `1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast). ABSTRACT GPS^IP is a suggested adjunct or alternate addressing scheme to IP, version 6. All of the remaining suggested, proposed, and ratified standards would remain as they are. As its name implies, GPS^IP would use Global Positioning System (GPS) information, perhaps in one of the currently unassigned regions of the IPv6 address space. This global position information would be placed somewhere in the 128 bit IP address, to provide a reasonable level of uniqueness. The remainder of the IP address could remain as currently described, both in IPv4 and IPv6, as described in other documents. Alternatively, a portion of the low order end of the IP address field could be populated with the MAC address as supplied by the interface. PERCEIVED BENEFITS The benefits of using geographical position information in the IP address are as follows: Address Uniqueness. With the accuracy of GPS locating equipment constantly improving, and the inclusion of altitude information in the address, each node that occupies a unique physical space will, by definition, have a unique "address". Although geographical latitude/longitude position alone would suffice to provide relative device uniqueness and routing knowledge, it is important to include altitude information in the case of multifloored buildings, or racks of equipment with unique identities. To guarantee node address uniqueness, MAC address information could be inserted into the IP address, in the same way low order portions of IPX addresses are generated. Mobility. A node's address would change as it moved, constantly providing a more accurate routable address, since the most local "GP server" would also provide the most appropriate "default gateway" address for traffic to and from the mobile node. Transparency. Addresses would not have to be established for individual nodes, since they would gather their addresses from equipment either in the node itself, or from nearby GP servers. Furthermore, if a portion of the low order end of the IP address field were to be populated with the MAC address as supplied by the machine's interface circuitry, this would guarantee uniqueness, even for machines that were right next to each other. Universality. This scheme could be used to provide meaningful information, by way of an IP address, for all types of equipment, including computer equipment, mobile/cellular phones, pagers, satellites, vending machines, etc. Backward Compatibility in routing methods. Current routing methodologies (i.e., lookup tables, more authoritative default gateways) could still be used. The Potential For Greater Routing Efficiency. Currently, there is no obvious method to correlate geographical position with a best route metric, without artificially devising methods that would create such a correlation (such as, "All nodes should be connected to their nearest geographical router", or "All nodes that do connect to their nearest geographical router can use the geography metric for routing". As the idea ruminates in the minds of the brilliant masses on the Net, there may come a time where routers may use lat-long-alt information to move datagrams toward a destination by algorithmic methods, rather than current lookup methods, for determining best route. Currently, however, this is NOT being stated as a perceived benefit of use geographical information in IP addressing. Device Location Awareness. Perhaps the greatest benefit would be that administrators and users of networks alike would be able to know where devices were on their networks. . DISCUSSION GPS^IP is a suggested adjunct or alternate addressing scheme to IP, version 6, referred to in RFC-1884. As its name implies, GPS^IP would use Global Positioning System (GPS) information. The GPS is a system of several space-based satellites that provide constantly transmitted location information to Earth. GPS receivers on the Earth (or elsewhere), with this transmitted information, and through the use of triangulation, can determine their own location, as latitude, longitude and altitude. This information, to a greater or lesser degree, provides accurate location information with sub-meter accuracy. Since other documents describe how this is achieved and how the degrees of accuracy are managed, this document will merely assume that this information can be made available to a node through some relatively inexpensive circuitry which would include RF receiver capabilities. The circuitry would be able to electronically produce its own location coordinates. This information will be referred to (in this document) as a node's global position (GP). This global position information would be placed in some currently unassigned portion of the 128 bit IP address, to provide a reasonable level of uniqueness, which is a basic requirement of any transport addressing scheme. The remainder of the IP address could remain as currently described, both in IPv4 and IPv6, as the four octet system. This would be done to provide administratively managed uniqueness, and, to a lesser degree, routing information to the IP address. Alternatively, a portion of the low order end of the IP address field could be populated with the MAC address as supplied by the interface for the guarantee of uniqueness. Within the network, certain nodes, such as routers, would have an awareness of their geographic location. This would be achieved by equipping these nodes with inexpensive GPS devices that would auto-locate. Also, certain of these nodes would provide such location information to other nodes that request it. In effect, these nodes would behave as Global Position Servers, "GP servers", or "GP daemons". All "GP clients" would request and gather this information from GP servers in their electronic horizon, or subnet, and use an algorithm, such as quickest response time, to select the optimal default GP server. The server that is chosen may or may not become the primary router, or default gateway, for that client station. The router that would act as the default gateway would become the destination router for all incoming information to any nodes that are "registered with" that router. Initially, only GP servers and routers would need to be configured, either statically or dynamically, with accurate GP information. This would be achieved statically, by using some hand-held lat-long-alt device at the machine and manually entering it into the GP server, or dynamically, by using a GPS location acquiring circuitry that would be installed directly into the GP server, and would feed this information directly and electronically to the system, perhaps through the BIOS, like on-board clocks. As time goes on, more client workstations would be outfitted with position gathering circuitry, so that these nodes could also serve as more local GP servers, and/or provide the actual lat-long-alt information directly, for the internal use of the system to create its own full IP address. Not all routers would have to be GP aware at first. The core, or heart of the network would be the devices that would have this information at the outset. Routers that were further away from the "backbone" would not necessarily have Global positioning awareness. Those that weren't would pad that portion of the address with zeros. When the datagram arrived at a GP aware router through standard routing methodologies, it would be that router's responsibility to replace the appropriate zeros with its own GP location coordinates. In this way, the GP portion of the return address of the datagram would first become the nearest GP router to the message originator. Thus, the "heart" of the routing system would be GP aware at first, with the more peripheral portions of the Internet becoming aware through the attrition of older devices in favor of GP aware newer technologies. CURRENT ARGUMENTS AGAINST THIS IDEA: "Geographical information cannot be used for routing purposes, since wires and geography are two different mathematical systems." Response: Currently, there is no identifiable method of mapping geographical information into an improved routing scheme than is currently employed, but current routing schemes can still be used as before, without alteration, so we are no worse off for having the information there. And, with geographical information is in the address, at least the potential for the evolution of improved routing algorithms based on geography is there. "What about privacy? I don't necessarily want anyone to know where I am when I send a message." Response: A "defeat location information" can be included as a configuration check box that users can manipulate for those holding this concern. Also, just as remailers are used, there would be similar ways to ensure "locale privacy". "There would be the cost overhead to include this equipment in machines." Response: It would not have to go into all machines as it would be a discretionary portion of the address. Over time, the machines that were most in need of locating quickly would be the ones that would get the additional hardware. Furthermore, with Global Position Servers able to provide proximity information to other "clients", devices would be able to provide general location information without adding equipment on a device-by-device basis. "There would be the addressing overhead to include global position information in the actual addresses." Response: This overhead already exists, since the current proposal on the table already accommodates 128 bits. There is no less overhead transmitting all zeros than in transmitting global positioning information instead. Why go through all the effort? Currently, with the proliferation of devices on the Internet, as well as the intranets, and with the addition of new types of devices, such as vending machines and video cameras, as is currently being experimented with on the Internet, keeping track of where these machines are will become increasingly more challenging. With the addition of software that would graphically display portions of the network in relation to a room, a floor, a building, or a continent, administrators could find the beaconing node, or the network enabled printer that is out of paper. This could all be done by looking at a map on a computer monitor and seeing the various devices in relation to the space that it occupies. In a small network that is not reconfigured frequently, this information may be trivial. However, in networks of more than 100 nodes, a single administrator or user would be hard-pressed to track all changes made to the network, especially if that administrator or user were relatively new to the network. To know where the vending machine got moved to on campus while someone was on vacation would be a very useful piece of information, especially if that device were sending distress pages that it needed servicing. What do you think? Author/Contact Information: John Mangione Competitive Computing 2000 Mountain View Drive Suite 106 Colchester, Vermont 05446 voice: (802) 655-0757 fax: (802) 655-6681 johnm@competitive.com