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

[Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]>]

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.

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.

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