Re: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 24/04/2015 21:22, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit :
> I am still not convinced.
> At home I have LTE.
> LTE can be 3G if it is somewhat degraded and 3G is also available, so
> no reason for inter technology handoff.

YEs there is reason.

At home one may prefer the cheap 802.11ac instead of 3G.  The bandwith 
improvement is huge.

> I am also concerned on some other MN ids proposed like RFid, what is
> the assumption there? Is it that the sensor node will have Mobile IP
> client?
> To that I say, give me a break.

Break.

But the MN-ID as RFID does not necessarily mean it runs a MIP client. 
In some deployment of buses the RFID is on the passenger and the mobile 
router in the bus running Mobile IP uses another MN-ID form.  YEt they 
authenticate to the same server, using MN-ID concept.

I think yes, MN-ID should be independent of Mobile IP, but sometimes 
work together.

Alex

>
> Behcet
> Behcet
>
> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Alexandru Petrescu
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Le 23/04/2015 19:11, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit :
>>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Alexandru Petrescu
>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Le 22/04/2015 18:06, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>     Hi Alex,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Alexandru Petrescu
>>>>> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Le 16/04/2015 06:58, Jouni Korhonen a écrit :
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The adoption call for this I-D has ended. There is a clear concensus
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> adopt the I-D as a working group item.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I support its adoption.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have been working with an identifier specific to automobiles to use
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> realize access control.  Identifying an entire set of IP nodes deployed
>>>>>> in a
>>>>>> vehicle is different than identifying an end-user like address@realm.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We looked for such an identifier and believe the VIN (Vehicle
>>>>>> Identification
>>>>>> Number) be a good candidate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One would consider using one type, like type 40, to encode the VIN or
>>>>>> parts
>>>>>> of it, into an MN-ID.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The questions to the group are the following:
>>>>>> - is VIN considered private information? (in deployments it is private
>>>>>>      to a certain extent, but publicly avaliable to cameras or in public
>>>>>>      databases to another extent).
>>>>>> - is the MN-ID type 40 ok for it.
>>>>>> - is one type sufficient or should there be subtypes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What is your model here in providing Internet access to the car?
>>>>> As you may know, operators in US are deploying systems that connect
>>>>> the car to their LTE network upstream and downstream is the passengers
>>>>> in the car that access over Wi-Fi.
>>>>> With LTE, you get mobility support which is based on fixed anchoring.
>>>>> I cc'ed to Raj who works on these types of technologies.
>>>>> The ID there is the IMSI. I don't think vin is used.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The model of Internet access to the cars for cars currently on market in
>>>> Europe is the same - the LTE technology is used, using the IMSI as an
>>>> identifier.  However, that does not use MN-ID, is only IPv4, is not WiFi
>>>> and
>>>> does not resist to cellular generation upgrades to 5G and beyond.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't understand the handover scenario. I think you are mixing the
>>> car and the passengers in the car.
>>> LTE is available on a large geography, why should you handover the
>>> upstream traffic to Wi-Fi?
>>
>>
>> When the car arrives home it connects to the WiFi available in home, thus
>> handing over from LTE.  This is a sold use-case at e.g. Tesla.  The WiFi
>> hotspot can be the one deployed in-house, in-garage, or the WiFi offered by
>> the electrical recharging stations.
>>
>> Other manufacturers propose scenarios in which car's WiFi antenna switches
>> from being an in-car hotspot to being a Client to outside wifi.
>>
>> Some consider 802.11p (wifi for vehicles) to be deployed along highways and
>> cars to perform handovers between these 802.11p access points.
>>
>> Next time on highway scan for WiFi - one is surprised by the number of
>> hotspots driving around, even though often they use portals.
>>
>> There are many commercially considered scenarios involving WiFi handovers
>> for cars.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Behcet
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Newer models will feature IPv6 in addition to IPv4, WiFi handover from
>>>> LTE
>>>> to house's hotspot, continuous sessions, and over-the-air software update
>>>> for cheap upgradeability to future generation 5G and beyond.
>>>>
>>>> In this context it is hard to imagine IMSI will be there for a long time
>>>> in
>>>> a given car, and a more permanent identifier is needed.
>>>>
>>>> To Raj - is LTE considering other kinds of identifiers for access control
>>>> (other than IMSI) for vehicular environments, like V2X?
>>>>
>>>> Alex
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Behcet
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yours,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Alex
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Jouni & Dapeng
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 4/1/2015, 8:02 AM, Jouni Korhonen kirjoitti:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Folks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This emails starts a two week call for the I-D
>>>>>>>>       draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01
>>>>>>>> to confirm the aadoption s a DMM WG document. The call ends April
>>>>>>>> 15th
>>>>>>>> EOB PST.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Express your support or opposition to the mailing list. During the
>>>>>>>> IETF92 meeting we got 7 voices for the adoption so at least the same
>>>>>>>> amount supporting emails should be expected.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Jouni & Dapeng
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> dmm mailing list
>>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> dmm mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>