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

Hi Alex,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dmm [mailto:dmm-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu
> Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 1:27 AM
> To: sarikaya@ieee.org
> Cc: sofiane.imadali@gmail.com; Basavaraj Patil; dmm@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01
> 
> Le 23/04/2015 19:11, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit :
> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Alexandru Petrescu
> > <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Le 22/04/2015 18:06, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit :
> >>>
> >>>    Hi Alex,
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Alexandru Petrescu
> >>> <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> 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.

In the aviation domain, the term "gatelink" is often used to describe
this kind of WiFi handover.

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

> 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
> >>>>> dmm@ietf.org
> >>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> dmm mailing list
> >>>> dmm@ietf.org
> >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dmm mailing list
> dmm@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm