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

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>