Re: [gaia] Fwd- Colorado Will Develop a Digital Highway Using Connected-Vehicle Technology
Rex Buddenberg <buddenbergr@gmail.com> Sat, 25 August 2018 23:04 UTC
Return-Path: <buddenbergr@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B4DD130EEB for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Aug 2018 16:04:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YSAI0HT3DHkx for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Aug 2018 16:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pl1-x631.google.com (mail-pl1-x631.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::631]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8B2201277C8 for <gaia@irtf.org>; Sat, 25 Aug 2018 16:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pl1-x631.google.com with SMTP id s17-v6so2538949plp.7 for <gaia@irtf.org>; Sat, 25 Aug 2018 16:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=message-id:subject:from:to:date:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding; bh=AlsbW9TBzygWFHGtSPRF+BCJ0tLWXH1bM/ivEi/4DYg=; b=CkvtHp0xrROxuTpp3F1q6igUN9LK9tErpIhGWjOHwrbfcEnZ5uYl6f2nmp+84WbBjm 5fiNHT8gW5iMFE1EhbhAFUYvGuNv9/JOLb2PVVZ15YNfRCTvsYT+EKQoQXYVtIIEFyUa 14YNQkjzEWoCR8MRy0K/DrSQ5TqmdRPmiqS5q7WAHsJrnohAUceEUa0V5WLjndCsVmFn R0ZBhS6xzjg3laGmYVB6u1s4Zv3yJQCcatqmt5OYHEanrLxchMILZDLLsm4qA1s8wI4U t02CczfytOP0996H3pl2D4D2NtIcdfca7WWMI3eR98QjD3clikAZlYtBhcZydNs6aw7o tPJw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:date:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=AlsbW9TBzygWFHGtSPRF+BCJ0tLWXH1bM/ivEi/4DYg=; b=ErqTpXXZqC3NR/5Zgqd+j1VrTnqb6j8Zk/6SDG5ax1Ghms6QdSgwWKKTsf/sa7KHw7 L+YOt3Rsm9MIc16wbLloh73enJDBdMw6InDqxG+Uy4ovHKvDC8VVcr6XR2t2q4xoRnWF Syr/QQnkNE3lVzynZ00TsMU+ZBQOk8nb4ZHvyD1BEuDbU/QV5Z3IY/PGVxjAv12T3qzG pau2j7lKvikQky1ox38i+HHKm1OjH2agN3S9F7Y8R5RLL4APbDA4PSZTf7bd7SefpNdZ Ephojw55GTxzHK/SREQD9kt+OLHHykn4nWr/wMOamVzzJR1zl0joKE4PUCOUHnboy4Vm UBHQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APzg51Bse7MJcA0TiOekga7KqNcAuic4P8M6GCV1kaErOCSn1ZEOx5Hw 0WW9VdQvuhtyeqn8C5k0bMk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ANB0VdaHkaVGXXf2G8j6zk3Uxj5ypIuxuIK6TtV4mjWQHUCPnku9MmeeHGKTMChAvCqci6Hamym9Jg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:8f8c:: with SMTP id z12-v6mr7161855plo.4.1535238285085; Sat, 25 Aug 2018 16:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (c-73-241-197-249.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [73.241.197.249]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r64-v6sm17840933pfk.157.2018.08.25.16.04.44 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Sat, 25 Aug 2018 16:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1535238283.18731.70.camel@gmail.com>
From: Rex Buddenberg <buddenbergr@gmail.com>
To: William Liu <william.liu@aut.ac.nz>, "gaia@irtf.org" <gaia@irtf.org>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2018 16:04:43 -0700
In-Reply-To: <75C3076859BB4145BD0008D393EDCFF7012400E5CF@Dempsey.autuni.aut.ac.nz>
References: <75C3076859BB4145BD0008D393EDCFF7012400E5CF@Dempsey.autuni.aut.ac.nz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.2 (3.18.5.2-1.fc23)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gaia/-zBWqKj00I88A1GnoYuHmpmxS7Q>
Subject: Re: [gaia] Fwd- Colorado Will Develop a Digital Highway Using Connected-Vehicle Technology
X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
Precedence: list
List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All <gaia.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/gaia>, <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gaia/>
List-Post: <mailto:gaia@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia>, <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2018 23:04:48 -0000
Will, There's a lot the article didn't cover. Including any of the technical that ought to be of interest to this group. Geography. Descant got what he said right -- mountainous area with real winter. By contrast, I-70 east of Denver is flat all the way to and through Kansas. But there's a lot that he didn't include. I-70 is paralleled by a railway; Amtrak's California Zephyr passes through daily, along with freight (the heavy freight route is next route north in Wyoming, parallel to I-80). What this means is that there is a pre-existing richness of connectivity here: cellphone and WiFi are already quite common -- much more so than typical rural. The area is basically rural, so you won't get the automobile density that you'd find in, say, Denver. All of this will tend to skew the test results in some ways that need to be understood before scaleup. Requirements. I've been through requirements exercises in information systems enough times to be wary: nobody gets it right. Consequently I'm an apostle of open architecture (warning: loose definition) where we can afford to be wrong and easily correct/ salvage/ scale/ extend. Government. Before 9/11, there was one US federal government agency dealing with emergency services communications: FCC. And it never said anything about protocols, only spectrum management. Today there are around a dozen agencies in federal government and some are working at cross-purposes. Read stuff like this with a wary eye out. Both this build-out and that in Columbus, Oh, are sponsored by National Highway Traffic Safety Agency, a grant-sponsoring office within US Dept of Transportation. Standards and standards bodies. The premier body involved here is IEEE 1609 (the IPWAV WG in IETF is a come-lately and, IMHO, hasn't gotten traction yet). IEEE 1609 defines two profiles that cover all 7 layers of the ISO model .... sorta. To decode this, you need your magic acronym decoder ring: V2V stands for vehicle-to-vehicle. V2I means vehicle to infrastructure, and V2X means all of the above. V2V and V2I each got a standards profile (If you're been through GOSIP and IPng like I have, this should immediately set off some suspicion alarms) The V2V profile voids layers 3,4,5 of the ISO stack -- no IP, no reliable connection, in fact no connection at all, only the equivalent of UDP -- spray and pray. Further, there is a tacit assumption that each automobile is an end system, not a LAN. When I ask about relaying and >1 hop, I get layer 2 bridging answers. Layers 1/2. The protocol specified is a variant of IEEE 802.11 (ocd). (We need a stress test here, and mountains of Colorado won't provide it. Too many nodes sending too much traffic -- remember your ethernet CSMA lessons). Layers 6/7. 1609 essentially specifies an application with a bunch of data definitions (has parallels to MIME definitions of e- mail). I think this area is probably good and I especially like where the committee has gone in terms of security -- by signing the messages themselves they protect the data, independent of the plumbing (this also needs a stress test -- potentially bigger PKI than anything I've ever seen). Reciting this is useful because the V2V work has gotten most of the committee's attention. Yet another instance of router-phobia, IMHO. ... how many of us remember AppleTalk? The protocol stack for the V2I (and hence the V2X) has gotten less attention. It looks a lot more like familiar protocol stacks (except for the explicit IPv6 callout). That's clearly what has to be implemented when you have roadside units, and background wired internet. Given the other infrastructure in the area, will this get any play? As an outlier, the big oops! splash this past week was when Verizon throttled a San Jose firefighting team's LTE connection in the middle of a wildfire (the TV stations around here have LOTS of lurid wildfire footage). I'm getting increasingly suspicious of government attempts to do what the commercial world already is. Notice that the SJ strike team was not using emergency service- specific frequencies, protocols or infrastructure -- they had LTE cellphones tied to the commercial network (a decade ago this was expressly prohibited in California!;). Others. Other vendors (Qualcomm is one) are pushing LTE Layer 2 solutions vice 802.11 ones. But they're not in the NHTSA tent. Just whaddya suppose is in those roadside units? (There's no engineering reason why 'both' isn't a decent answer). This leaves us with the following conundrum: - emergency-services specific infrastructure has not done well. - straight commercial infrastructure doesn't meet some critical emergency services needs (availability, survivability, coverage, etc) except by accident. How do we get past this? b Seastory. A decade ago, the I-35 bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis collapsed. Dumped a dozen cars into the river and caused a monumental traffic jam -- it happened right at the start of afternoon rush hour. Minneapolis had just contracted (city, therefore taxpayer, money) with an ISP to provide city-wide WiFi coverage. Remember, a decade ago, this was novel. The intent was to provide primary coverage for city use; any excess capacity could be sold publicly. When the bridge collapsed, the ISP immediately dropped all barriers to use of it's WiFi net and left it that way for a day. Today you can get a free WiFi connection most anywhere urban/suburban in US, but not a decade ago. What happened was that lots of laptops in traffic suddenly got connections so commuters could call home (the cellphone system was jammed solid). The effect was that the missing person's problem was decanted -- the only missing persons left on the list were the poor folks at the bottom of the river. This missing persons problem seems to occur in about half of the major disaster situations and represents a very serious part of the response problem -- credit for making it not happen. On Sat, 2018-08-25 at 21:25 +0000, William Liu wrote: > Looks me an yummy article to share: > http://www.govtech.com/Colorado-Will-Develop-a-Digital-Highway-Using- > Connected-Vehicle-Technology-.html > > Cheers W > _______________________________________________ > gaia mailing list > gaia@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia
- [gaia] Fwd- Colorado Will Develop a Digital Highw… William Liu
- Re: [gaia] Fwd- Colorado Will Develop a Digital H… Rex Buddenberg