IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 absence of addressing the multi-channel service of 802.11 OCB

Jérôme Härri <jerome.haerri@eurecom.fr> Fri, 10 February 2017 11:53 UTC

Return-Path: <jerome.haerri@eurecom.fr>
X-Original-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: its@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF2D812961D for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 03:53:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 Cala_r-PwtKN for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 03:53:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2.eurecom.fr (smtp3.eurecom.fr [193.55.113.213]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E3D971289C4 for <its@ietf.org>; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 03:53:30 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.35,141,1484002800"; d="scan'208";a="5756068"
Received: from monza.eurecom.fr ([192.168.106.15]) by drago2i.eurecom.fr with ESMTP; 10 Feb 2017 12:53:30 +0100
Received: from xerus29 (xerus29.eurecom.fr [172.17.31.38]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by monza.eurecom.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2514C1A59; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:53:30 +0100 (CET)
From: Jérôme Härri <jerome.haerri@eurecom.fr>
To: 'Alexandre Petrescu' <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, its@ietf.org
References: <148052970170.9607.12043916621198119260.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3046d8b9-0079-99f0-9e9a-f5f88c9c8f5a@cea.fr>
In-Reply-To: <3046d8b9-0079-99f0-9e9a-f5f88c9c8f5a@cea.fr>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:53:29 +0100
Organization: EURECOM
Message-ID: <012301d28394$4c0a7d40$e41f77c0$@eurecom.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQJOjypQjcVLCnmBW2ydKpCtKDvNtwGpzVvToFy7LwA=
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/16-eA9eE5LHe5epqEw1DaGTv2V4>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 absence of addressing the multi-channel service of 802.11 OCB
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IPWAVE - IP Wireless Access in Vehicular Environments WG at IETF <its.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/its/>
List-Post: <mailto:its@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its>, <mailto:its-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 11:53:32 -0000

Hello Alex,

What do you mean with multi-channel? OCB does not provide any multi-channel
service. Higher-layer services do (IEEE WAVE or ETSI)...OCB only assume that
the frequency to be used is 'known', so using OCB actually means knowing a
set of channels where to send OCB-related packets...I am not sure if this
could be called a multi-channel service...

However, we should mention that IPv6 would intend to offer such a
service...if this is what you meant, I agree with you.

Best Regards.

Jérôme

-----Original Message-----
From: its [mailto:its-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu
Sent: Friday 10 February 2017 12:13
To: its@ietf.org
Subject: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 absence of
addressing the multi-channel service of 802.11 OCB

draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00
absence of addressing the multi-channel service of 802.11 OCB

Hello IPWAVErs,

We received a comment stating that this document does not really address the
multi-channel service that 802.11 OCB is capable of providing.

I agree with the comment.

I have not seen other IPv6-over-foo documents addressing channel issues.

There is no IPv6-over-WiFi RFC, which could address them.

In vehicular networks implementations there is often a careful planning of
channel allocation to avoid interference.  Dynamic channel use schemes
exist.

Yours,

Alex

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email