Re: draft-kaiser-nd-pd-00.txt

[Romain KUNTZ <[e-mail]>]

Hello Alex,

On Nov 3, 2012, at 17:53 , Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Le 02/11/2012 20:59, Michael Richardson a écrit :
>> 
>> Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]> wrote: AP> Well
>> yes, the prefix allocated to a vehicle when using NEMO is AP>
>> actually DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation RFC6276.  In that RFC the AP>
>> presence of HA is mandatory.
>> 
>> AP> But some times HA may not be available, e.g. in remote areas or
>> AP> uncovered areas.  There, one would still want vehicles to AP>
>> inter-communicate.
>> 
>> Yes, so if there is no uplink, then there is no addresses, so really,
>> it's not an address allocation problem, it's a routing problem.
> 
> In a sense yes.
> 
> But let me try to present this better.
> 
> I think you agree that, in general, one wouldn't forbid two nearby
> vehicles to communicate to each other, even though infrastructure may
> not be available in that area.  If you differ on this aspect (like
> assuming pervasive WMAN everywhere) then please let me know.
> 
> When there is no uplink (no WMAN) the negative aspect is that vehicles
> can not use MIP-NEMO nor NEMO-DHCP-PD to dynamically obtain prefixes.
> The positive aspect is that they can self form whatever but unique
> addresses they want, or assign whatever but routed addresses among them,
> without fear of disturbing infrastructure routing, and happily without
> tunnels either.

Sorry to jump into the discussion. In the case there is no uplink connectivity, I would tend to say that vehicles would use the prefix that had been assigned to them previously (when infrastructure was available and they had connectivity to run NEMO/DHCPv6-PD). Or do you consider that the LV would never have the capability to connect to the infrastructure?

Thank you,
Romain

> Whether vehicles self-form addresses and inform each other about them,
> or otherwise use a central vehicle to allocate addresses to each other,
> is indeed debatable.
> 
> I think both paths should be pursued.  (I mean I have a draft for each,
> and there's a competitor draft for one of them, and I plan to write
> another one about self-forming ULAs from VIN and there's competitor
> activity on this VIN-ULA.)
> 
>> 
>> AP> Direct communication between vehicles in the absence from AP>
>> infrastructure is what is being experimented in some settings, AP>
>> although I agree they may not be reflected in ISO works.  I can AP>
>> speak of the EU project I work on with these V2V and V2V2I AP>
>> use-cases.
>> 
>>>> For the scenario involving the roadside and the vehicle, the
>>>> prefix can be exchanged as proposed by Lee
>>>> (draft-jhlee-mext-mnpp). The solution from Lee is being
>>>> integrated in the ISO TC204 standards related to ISO 21210.
>> 
>> AP> I am happy to learn that draft-jhlee-mext-mnpp work is AP>
>> integrated in ISO TC204 work.
>> 
>> Can you tell us how/if we can view this TC204 work?
> 
> Yes, I wonder about this as well.  I think Thierry or Jong-Hyouk are in
> best position to briefly describe this.
> 
>> Also, I can not find draft-jhlee-mext-mnpp. Is there a typo?
> 
> I think it is http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jhlee-mext-mnpp-00
> (it may look expired but there is intention on continuing it, I believe)
> Is this pointer working for you?
> 
> Alex
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [e-mail] Administrative
>> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------