Re: Update about draft-petrescu-ipv6-over-80211p-01.txt

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Mon, 27 January 2014 10:56 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F9601A01D2 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 02:56:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.084
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.084 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham
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 cQL0tsP5luoh for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 02:56:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 056D81A017A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 02:56:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id s0RAuXno027247; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:56:33 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 7CE41204F1A; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:56:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E317204F08; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:56:39 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id s0RAuJj6002358; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:56:32 +0100
Message-ID: <52E63B52.3070004@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 11:56:18 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ray Hunter <Ray.Hunter@globis.net>
Subject: Re: Update about draft-petrescu-ipv6-over-80211p-01.txt
References: <52DBDCD3.6010600@gmail.com> <52E60967.9040206@globis.net>
In-Reply-To: <52E60967.9040206@globis.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Romain KUNTZ <r.kuntz@gmail.com>, 6man <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 10:56:42 -0000

Hi Ray,

Thanks for the reply.

Le 27/01/2014 08:23, Ray Hunter a écrit :
> I have read this draft. Thanks for sharing your experiences.
>
> Would 6LoWPan RFC6775 not be more appropriate for dealing with the
> issues identified in Section 5.6, when 802.11p is operating in OCB
> mode?

There is a similarity and a discrepancy when comparing the low-power to
the high mobility constraints of 6lowpans and vehicular networks: both
would benefit if fewer messages were sent, and still vehicle networks 
are not so battery-limited as the sensors.

> I realise that in a vehicular scenario, maintaining the mesh under
> network may prove challenging.

I think that is right.  Maintaining a mesh under is challenging in the 
vehicular scenarios.

I think RFC6775 has a form of distributing routes (router-to-router 
interactions) but I doubt it describes loop avoidance, which should be 
part of mesh under, right?

The section 5.6 needs more explanation.  Would you be interested?

Also, this would be a typical IPv6-over-foo document, and such as maybe 
we would not need to describe too much routing/meshing detail.

Alex
>
> Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>> Hello 6MAN participants,
>>
>> This is an update you about draft-petrescu-ipv6-over-80211p-01.txt:
>>  what happened with it since November last year?
>>
>> - slight textual modifications about one author affiliation. -
>> announced on v6ops and on 6lo.  Received some private comments
>> about its usefulness and where to discuss it.
>>
>> Please comment on this draft.
>>
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-petrescu-ipv6-over-80211p-01
>>
>> "Transmission of IPv6 Packets over IEEE 802.11p Networks"
>> draft-petrescu-ipv6-over-80211p-01.txt
>>
>> "In order to transmit IPv6 packets on IEEE 802.11p networks there
>> is a need to define a few parameters such as the recommended
>> Maximum Transmission Unit size, the header format preceding the
>> IPv6 base header, the Type value within it, and others.  This
>> document describes these parameters for IPv6 and IEEE 802.11p
>> networks; it portrays the layering of IPv6 on 802.11p similarly to
>> other known 802.11 and Ethernet layers, by using an existing
>> Ethernet Adaptation Layer.
>>
>> In addition, the document attempts to list what is different in
>> 802.11p compared to more 'traditional' 802.11a/b/g/n layers,
>> layers over which IPv6 protocols run ok.  Most notably, the
>> operation outside the context of a BSS (OCB) has impact on IPv6
>> handover behaviour and on IPv6 security.
>>
>> An example of an IPv6 packet captured while transmitted over an
>> IEEE 802.11p link is given."
>>
>> Alex
>>
>> --- Ce courrier électronique ne contient aucun virus ou logiciel
>> malveillant parce que la protection avast! Antivirus est active.
>> http://www.avast.com
>>
>>
>