1 / 9

Location Configuration at Layer 7

Location Configuration at Layer 7. Andrew Newton, SunRocket, Inc. GEOPRIV Working Group Co-chair, IETF SDO Emergency Services Coordination Workshop (ESW06) Columbia University, New York, NY, US 6 October 2006. Overview. Location Configuration at the UA

maya
Download Presentation

Location Configuration at Layer 7

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Location Configuration at Layer 7 • Andrew Newton, SunRocket, Inc. • GEOPRIV Working Group Co-chair, IETF • SDO Emergency Services Coordination Workshop (ESW06) • Columbia University, New York, NY, US • 6 October 2006

  2. Overview • Location Configuration at the UA • This is the first step in conveying information from the end user to the first responder. • In GEOPRIV terminology, the act of acquiring location information of a “target” is called “sighting”. • Numerous methods. • Manual • Sensor measurements. • From/with the network, associated with layer configuration • 802 LLDP, DHCP, Layer 7 LCP, etc...

  3. L7LCP(Layer 7 Location Configuration Protocol) • Justification: Lower layers do not always provide location configuration. • Desired by IP network operators. • Usable to VSPs. • Not restricted to subnet boundaries. • Potential to circumvent NATs. • Perceived extensibility (aka XML) and enhanced security (aka TLS, XML DSig) at application layer.

  4. Challenges • LIS discovery • because if the lower layer isn’t providing location information, it is likely not pointing to it either • End host location retrieval identifier • known to the end host and the LIS, but nobody else. • Location-by-Reference • pervades the GEOPRIV model, but starts here • Location signing. Useful or not?

  5. Location-by-Reference • Push vs. Poll; pres: vs. http: • End host may off-load publication of location information to a 3rd party. • De-reference could offer tailored response to PSAP. • De-reference could be limited to PSAPs... but then how do you know it is a PSAP. Security & Privacy issue. • Network operator could keep location information out of the hands of the customer. For emergencies, this seems more harmful than helpful. • End host may subscribe to its own location from the network (useful for mobility). • Seems more palatable for location configuration, very controversial for location conveyance.

  6. Location Signing • Signed location without an identity is not helpful. Easy to copy. • Too much coordination required for it to work at Internet scale. • Thousands of PSAPS, millions of voice service providers (aka businesses) • PSAPs may regard calls without signatures as suspect. Is that useful? • Only relevant to calls where no human contact is established? • Caller identity, not network identity, is more useful for accountability.

  7. Work Status • Design Team: drafted problem statement and requirements. • Next step: get approval of entire working group. • Then pick the protocol proposal that best matches our requirements. • Refine it. • Ratify it in the working group. • Ratify it in the IETF.

  8. L7LCP Proposals • HELD • draft-winterbottom-http-location-delivery • http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-winterbottom-http-location-delivery-03.txt • LCP • draft-linsner-geopriv-lcp-00 • expired • RELO • draft-schulzrinne-geopriv-relo • http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-schulzrinne-geopriv-relo-00.txt • One more on the way...

  9. References • L7 LCP Problem Statement & Requirements • draft-tschofenig-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps • http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tschofenig-geopriv-l7-lcp-ps-02.txt • GEOPRIV Requirements and Security Threats Analysis • IETF RFC 3693 • IETF RFC 3694 • DHCP Coordinate Based Location Configuration Information • IETF RFC 3825 • DHCP Option for Civic Address Configuration • draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil • http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-civil-09.txt

More Related