Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-46
Nabil Benamar <n.benamar@est.umi.ac.ma> Fri, 05 July 2019 20:28 UTC
Return-Path: <n.benamar@est.umi.ac.ma>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CA9C120119 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:28:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=est-umi-ac-ma.20150623.gappssmtp.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 ngOIMtBe6I-m for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd2a.google.com (mail-io1-xd2a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d2a]) (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 8C028120118 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd2a.google.com with SMTP id k20so21549751ios.10 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 05 Jul 2019 13:28:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=est-umi-ac-ma.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=9nP7Y14U9fXKOgbS3eOEVjdjCxBmhYwWormdo7ZsTfk=; b=sES+cCwbqs+xyEIIFEU1epuhAyT5r61QLkGvY0eGPpmoSvmxstD9gzA55xz1AcsFle FC9aENmhd7tggO1Ql03NSVG4HPRFfdbEVypncyHKCMa4M6xGnc/F49uXzJ7Y+88jMOtC sxmDsaYdzA/M2VGaoYFXmYqYkHSIwoz2JLk+KWWtQg3k6QHXtta7n0cFzIZOkI4qcxAO sJehnODYU75Bjes1xdc8GJ2T0WlqMAO5dTS6m3dNh3Uh74A9m2GLfXtPy3cWTGcFO4Qz +u6+/6G58kq+eoogVmVsn3Au2MSkbVQnvJKojQMJ3Blzaxaj9SONuZgPHPsCeyOVxdfD yo6A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9nP7Y14U9fXKOgbS3eOEVjdjCxBmhYwWormdo7ZsTfk=; b=Zkflg7UFxQ7x9wDqc7USJJYHsV/ycR/5iUR9zXeQDCH9dW0SA7SpUujYf1SvONt6R/ peEjgbN2aP6xtdUzKyKISh9JZMTTGuiBPSD64jAahF/Bwq5t32/FNCO2TQlgND0FYAfq 0ClWYBj6MfCgWiQ1dPM/EDA2KiGMVZvVqMGnXJJib85lax6w1YlwUeEQltwLG+l8ODF9 D1I1F9NtNMUcmvrfuLAOiXolc0adsT0PuXQcevU6/Vjw+ovROAtKP9M1kLaqh5kvKzxP X7xlfKwPM88ARql/wbmqbjMiQpZzSz/LDu7VuvTP/groF/KNyTJmL/Rhd+g6okbwL/01 PKjg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXQlAy9Yimfd0NJ9zc1CnLoUZJS4ADZBrV29ChSouVhrCGcwYGk mcHSrCuEJmyMGJPHR6U5nQ+X/a0PJQp5eFgNDCD3zg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxLsT0Sb5PXQA/jeIgCCDoNhEWWCLgkz/uKwdoP+CB0HbHi/9to3TqQCg14RA+iIDuyaUF7eeX4pp9vma/C3kU=
X-Received: by 2002:a6b:691d:: with SMTP id e29mr5746111ioc.96.1562358502712; Fri, 05 Jul 2019 13:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <156165351682.21357.6959207590092474225@ietfa.amsl.com> <37386336-7f59-7e6f-03d4-2f7994304f74@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <37386336-7f59-7e6f-03d4-2f7994304f74@gmail.com>
From: Nabil Benamar <n.benamar@est.umi.ac.ma>
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 21:28:11 +0100
Message-ID: <CAD8vqFeKKDzUutP2pUa0yJjW3Dv+9xyagYmgyBG9oZ4a39ZGGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-46
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Cc: Joerg Ott <jo@acm.org>, tsv-art@ietf.org, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, its@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000912f33058cf4ef09"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Ll948zUYiJTqM4wDCpIbyzzBD_s>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 20:28:27 -0000
Hi Alex, Thank you for your exhaustive clarifications! Indeed, the word encapsulation may be understood/interpreted in different ways! I will replace it with 'Transportation' in the next update. On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 12:15 PM Alexandre Petrescu < alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Le 27/06/2019 à 18:38, Joerg Ott via Datatracker a écrit : > [...] > > App. E: why would high mobility affect encapsulation"? > > The paragraph in question is this: > > > > Appendix E. Design Considerations > > > > The networks defined by 802.11-OCB are in many ways similar to other > > networks of the 802.11 family. In theory, the encapsulation of IPv6 > > over 802.11-OCB could be very similar to the operation of IPv6 over > > other networks of the 802.11 family. However, the high mobility, > > strong link asymmetry and very short connection makes the 802.11-OCB > > link significantly different from other 802.11 networks. Also, the > > automotive applications have specific requirements for reliability, > > security and privacy, which further add to the particularity of the > > 802.11-OCB link. > > There a huge list of Design Considerations in the main matter. More and > more reviews led to skinning it to just one paragraph, depicted above. > > Let me try to answer to the question of why would high mobility affect > encapsulation. > > First, the word encapsulation seems to have captured your attention. I > hope it is for a good reason, but frankly speaking I do not know the > reason why it attracted it. To clarify, let me say that the word > 'encapsulation' was used to signify 'carrying' IPv6 datagrams on > 802.11-OCB. One expects IPv6 to be carried over OCB as over WiFi. > ('encapsulation' was not used to mean IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation and > friends). > > The high mobility in OCB is contrasted to low (or no) mobility in WiFi - > it means that in WiFi users are near a fixed Access Point and dont move > much. But in OCB there are no access points and cars move a lot. > > High mobility in OCB may need to avoid potential interference in order > to ensure safety. TO achieve that, it may be possible that QoS concents > become more mandatory on OCB links (than on WiFi; on WiFi the QoS > concepts are almost absent in implementations). Thus, there may be a > need of some mapping between IPv6 QoS-specific fields and 802.11-OCB > QoS-specific fields. There may be need of other QoS-specific fields. > > So, whereas an IPv6-over-WiFi spec (which does not exist, btw) has no > mapping of QoS fields of how IPv6 is 'carried' (encapsulated) on WiFi, > an IPv6-over-OCB would need some mapping of this sort, so that IPv6 is > better 'carried' over OCB. Because of mobility. > > QoS is just an example of why encapsulating (carrying) IPv6 on OCB may > need more than just what is needed by carring IPv6 on WiFi. > > There are other examples: IPv6 addressing in OCB links requires human > intervention often - it's not as plug and play as IPv6 over WiFi. That > needs easy to remember and subnet-specific link local addresses, like > fe80:1::1/32. These addresses dont exist on IPv6 altogher, let alone > IPv6-over-WiFi. > > There are more examples. > > Remark my own difficulty of speculating on something which does not > exist: IPv6 over WiFi specification. > > Alex > -- Best Regards Nabil Benamar Associate Professor Department of Computer Sciences School of Technology Moulay Ismail University Meknes. Morocco
- Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6… Joerg Ott via Datatracker
- Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-ipwave-… Nabil Benamar
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ie… Joerg Ott
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ie… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ie… Nabil Benamar
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ie… Joerg Ott
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ie… Nabil Benamar
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ie… Joerg Ott
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ie… Nabil Benamar
- Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-ipwave-… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-ipwave-… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-ipwave-… Nabil Benamar
- Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-ipwave-… Nabil Benamar
- Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-ipwave-… Nabil Benamar
- Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-ipwave-… Joerg Ott
- Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-ipwave-… Nabil Benamar
- Re: Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-ipwave-… Nabil Benamar