IETF Logo Mail Archive

[ipwave] QoS Data vs. Data for IPv6 over 802.11-OCB

Sandra Céspedes U. <scespedes@ing.uchile.cl> Thu, 10 October 2019 14:42 UTC

Return-Path: <scespedes@ing.uchile.cl>
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 E03D112002E for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 07:42:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.401
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.401 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ing.uchile.cl header.b=YL5wD3pD; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ing.uchile.cl header.b=SaJw3G3x
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 lWx-GRbjPDT4 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 07:42:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cec.uchile.cl (mail2.cec.uchile.cl [200.9.100.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F134E1200F9 for <its@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 07:42:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.cec.uchile.cl (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.cec.uchile.cl (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A1B2A076B for <its@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 11:41:57 -0300 (-03)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.cec.uchile.cl 5A1B2A076B
Authentication-Results: mail2.cec.uchile.cl; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ing.uchile.cl
Authentication-Results: mail2.cec.uchile.cl; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=scespedes@ing.uchile.cl
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail.cec.uchile.cl 5A1B2A076B
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ing.uchile.cl; s=default; t=1570718518; bh=TdD1fhff5SGZ4mtkqIIVv1/47ckjRz8U4pIco9XyXIg=; h=Subject:References:To:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=YL5wD3pDKpMwwx2IoABp4IsCm5AWCAxp3IcdSk3+KAvCu5rpXJk3VYBIo8Meu5fq7 wh+LjrvXrAMvfXNHv1F6cu5fDNCUA1JlUo1RtK0l3Qqghg3g6ZVXf2WDglLvuB2tia r7cs9aeAUjmC97zyMOuRFLvWP19LshfufZRq3LtE=
Received: from [172.17.31.32] (unknown [172.17.31.32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mail.cec.uchile.cl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B00A7A06BD for <its@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Oct 2019 11:41:55 -0300 (-03)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.cec.uchile.cl B00A7A06BD
Authentication-Results: mail2.cec.uchile.cl; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=ing.uchile.cl
Authentication-Results: mail2.cec.uchile.cl; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=scespedes@ing.uchile.cl
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail.cec.uchile.cl B00A7A06BD
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ing.uchile.cl; s=default; t=1570718515; bh=TdD1fhff5SGZ4mtkqIIVv1/47ckjRz8U4pIco9XyXIg=; h=Subject:References:To:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=SaJw3G3xJmLxvHztvJVgS04+xe8k91a1JMZRKNSEVudFHSaUgT5PrQAxp/gLn+o3O vRYp+NHvxFhbMRl6yvEk91QN9ZNlAfpS3uFHcqcf9Q7KpOEvfzzReU5kLvOnudwn8P HekskEGiP53gqbCfHjBbHXTEC3mdCguN8DE+uYDg=
References: <29da193f-51bc-3741-5185-62d4e247c3e5@ing.uchile.cl>
To: its@ietf.org
From: "Sandra Céspedes U." <scespedes@ing.uchile.cl>
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <29da193f-51bc-3741-5185-62d4e247c3e5@ing.uchile.cl>
Message-ID: <fbf17ba9-dd45-efad-6fae-f3ff3556f9b9@ing.uchile.cl>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 11:41:56 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <29da193f-51bc-3741-5185-62d4e247c3e5@ing.uchile.cl>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------79A14F4A45D35B50B3B2577F"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 191010-0, 10-10-2019), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV using ClamSMTP
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/3GbznkPdEo3shrFwJuKzWBKd3sg>
Subject: [ipwave] QoS Data vs. Data for IPv6 over 802.11-OCB
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 10 Oct 2019 14:42:21 -0000

Dear all,

Here at Niclabs, Universidad de Chile, we have been playing with some 
commercial RSU and OBUs we use for research purposes. I asked my 
students to capture traffic from basic IP exchanges to confirm the type 
of encapsulation at the link layer. If you check the report below (I 
have also included the pcap files), they confirm that all the IP packets 
are encapsulated as QoS Data.

I'm providing the files to have more evidence of what the commercial 
vendors are doing in their implementations.

Hope you find them useful.

Best,
Sandra Céspedes




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email