Re: [ipwave] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-20
Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 09 September 2021 08:30 UTC
Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
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 83F503A21D1 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Sep 2021 01:30:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.668
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.668 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 uBFI00R4Vl8n for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Sep 2021 01:30:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 985FE3A21C4 for <its@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Sep 2021 01:30:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 1898UZ0C015793 for <its@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Sep 2021 10:30:35 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id DF2BD2041CB for <its@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Sep 2021 10:30:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id CED632040B4 for <its@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Sep 2021 10:30:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.14.8.4] ([10.14.8.4]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 1898UWGH010233 for <its@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Sep 2021 10:30:32 +0200
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
To: its@ietf.org
References: <162400216663.17839.1738900015320888640@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAPK2DezN9benfLS9VQw1uS9cEXMQFjrs_m-jJu+3JtgCrfBWWQ@mail.gmail.com> <CO1PR11MB48811753BC5EC02469400262D8CE9@CO1PR11MB4881.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <b362d808-3db4-c0c4-cf25-57f50d10bfcf@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <866fb233-71c5-dedb-a550-15730630703a@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2021 10:30:32 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b362d808-3db4-c0c4-cf25-57f50d10bfcf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------B7965F998E5AD11A2A959D99"
Content-Language: fr
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/SBDFb1Em0nW6yxZryEeHkX4jaZU>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-20
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, 09 Sep 2021 08:30:48 -0000
Le 09/09/2021 à 10:20, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit : PAscal wrote: > this approach is beneficial for situations where the power and > bandwidth are scarce (e.g., an IoT LLN where RPL is typically used > today), but also in situations of high relative mobility between the > nodes in the network (aka swarming, e.g., within a variable set of > vehicles with a similar global motion, or a toon of drones). For the 'toon of drones' - we came up with the word 'flightooning' in a small group of people I talk to. These 'flightoons' use a very coherent internal structure. It is 'figé', which means the drones dont move with respect to each other and fly together as a single unit. These flightoons do move in 3 dimensions, but the relative speed of a drone with respect to the other is 0, and the group follows pre-determined paths; its altitude parameter does take values between 0 and 300meters for a length of maybe a few hundred meters). The flightooning use-case is simpler than the sliding lanes of convoys (mainly on a 2 dimensional road, and just a small variation in altitidue like a few tens of meters along a few kilometers - the 'pente', max. 15 degrees for most advanced tanks) on the road where there is variable speed (ach lane has a different speed). These parameters are well known. They might constitute what some people consider an 'ODD' (an Operational Design Domain), a set of limits within which the respective mobile entities are guaranteed a certain level of safety at a certain level of automation (L1..L4, SAE). The communication system in a toon of drones, or a 'flightoon', might not need to use RPL, which is designed for electricity counters at home. Alex > > Car networks do not need arbitrary mobility. Their mobility patterns > are very restricted. It is not brownian movements. > > For example, cars move on ways along pre-determined paths. There > might be convoys, and sliding lanes of cars, there might be > intersections controlled by traffic lights; human reaction (in the > order of 1 or 2 seconds, or more) is what makes for dynamicity in car > networks; that time (seconds delay) is very very high compared to the > latency of modern wireless media (e.g. 802.11bd with below > milli-second latencies). Generally speaking it is a very orderly > movement. > > Yes, we are impressed with the speed of cars, and imagine that for > these speeds the communication protocols might not cope with. But one > has to consider _relative_ speeds (e.g. a car following another one is > practically stationary with respect to it), and one has to consider > the speed of the communication medium which is the speed of light. > > Think that even a launch of a rocket carrying tons of payload at > 30.000 km/h vertically still sends live video we can enjoy seeing over > the Internet today. There is no need of new protocol for that kind of > mobility, and still the dynamicity aspect (speed) is very very > extreme; it is probably the highest speeds one can achieve on Earth. > > Trying to make 'universal' protocols that work well in a a wide range > of mobility and dynamicity is a too high objective. One can try, yes, > but does it succeed in deployment? > > Alex > > >> To reduce the routing exchanges, RPL leverages a Distance Vector >> approach, which does not need a global knowledge of the topology, and >> only optimizes the routes to and from the root, allowing P2P paths to >> be stretched. Although RPL installs its routes proactively, it only >> maintains them lazily, in reaction to actual traffic, or as a slow >> background activity. Additionally, RPL leverages the concept of an >> objective function, which allows to adapt the activity of the routing >> protocol to the use case, e.g., type, speed, and quality of the >> radios. RPL does not need converge, and provides connectivity to most >> nodes most of the time. The default route towards the Root is >> maintained aggressively and may change while a packet progresses >> without causing loops, so the packet will still reach the root. In >> non-storing mode, a node inside the mesh/swarm that changes its >> point(s) of attachment to the graph informs the root with a single >> unicast packet the flows along the default route, and the >> connectivity is restored immediately; this mode is preferable for use >> cases where internet connectivity is dominant. OTOH, in storing mode, >> the routing stretch is reduced, for a better P2P connectivity, while >> the internet connectivity is restored more slowly, time for the DV >> operation to operate hop-by-hop. While a RPL topology can quickly >> scale up and down and fits the needs of mobility of vehicles, the >> total performance of the system will also depend on how quickly a >> node can form an address, join the mesh (including AAA), and manage >> its global mobility to become reachable from outside the mesh. >> >> “ >> >> Otherwise, all good! >> >> Take care, >> >> Pascal >> >> *From:* Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> >> *Sent:* lundi 30 août 2021 15:12 >> *To:* Pascal Thubert (pthubert) <pthubert@cisco.com> >> *Cc:* int-dir@ietf.org; Last Call <last-call@ietf.org>; >> draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking.all@ietf.org; its@ietf.org; >> Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>; CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO >> <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>; skku-iotlab-members >> <skku-iotlab-members@googlegroups.com>; Chris Shen >> <shenyiwen7@gmail.com>; Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> >> *Subject:* Re: [ipwave] Intdir last call review of >> draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-20 >> >> Hi Pascal, >> >> Here is the revision (-21) of IPWAVE PS Draft: >> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-21 >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-21> >> >> I attach the revision letter to show how I have addressed your >> comments on the revision. >> >> Chris and I have worked for this revision together. >> >> If you have further comments, please let me know. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Paul >> >> On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 4:42 PM Pascal Thubert via Datatracker >> <noreply@ietf.org <mailto:noreply@ietf.org>> wrote: >> >> Reviewer: Pascal Thubert >> Review result: Not Ready >> >> Dear authors >> >> In summary: >> >> I read a number of very good drafts collated in one, from the use >> cases that >> very complete and ready to publish, to the architecture and >> protocol solution >> in section 4 that would require more work for completeness. >> >> There are multiple instances in the use cases where protocols are >> listed coming >> out of the blue, e.g., the references to OMNI that seem >> artificially spread >> regardless of the context of the section. OMNI is used >> throughout, both as an >> open ended toolbox, and as a carpet under which all problems can >> be hidden. >> >> Reading this doc, OMNI shows as an interface to a software mobile >> router, with >> multiple of the device physical interfaces connected to the >> mobile router. This >> makes the stack very simple as the complexity moves to the >> router. But now you >> have to implement the router. Presented as that, the OMNI router >> deserves its >> name, it’s indeed very rich; it seems to cover all forms of MANET >> (many to >> choose from) and NEMO (and all the MIP protocol family across address >> families), all the possible radio interfaces on which the ND >> problems go away >> by magic, and whatever else you want to put in there. Is that the >> intention? >> >> Instead of referring to OMNI for virtually anything, the doc >> should refer to >> MANET for MANET things (like BYOD), NEMO for NEMO things (like MNP), >> draft-nordmark-intarea-ippl for split subnets, and >> draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless for P2MP/NBMA link and >> subnet models. And >> then you can say that all those components can be plugged in the >> OMNI router, >> and you can discuss which MANET and which MIP you want, including >> using OMNI’s >> built in mobility. >> >> Note that my objections are not against the OMNI design, it might >> be the >> perfect thing and I am already aware of use cases that could be >> served by a >> P2MP interface like OMNI in conjunction with RFC8505 on the P2P >> subinterfaces >> (recycling the high level design we’ve been shipping for IPv4 / >> frame relay for >> the last 30 years). My objection is of the way the draft uses >> [OMNI] as the >> magic wand that solves all the problems when what you really do >> is throw them >> over the fence. I’d rather you focus on problems and use cases, >> for which >> there’s excellent text, and indicate what needs to be done >> without making >> assumption on how the needful things will be solved. >> >> In agreement with a discussion on the 6MAN list, I’d suggest to >> split, keep all >> that’s use case and problem description and ship it, remove >> references to >> protocols envisioned in the solution, and start the work on >> architecture of the >> solution and the protocol applicability statements separately. An >> alternate >> would be to centralize the discussion on protocols to annex, and >> explain that >> protocol A or B could be envisioned in solution space because to >> over this gap >> or implement that function. >> >> In any fashion, the current text is not ready for publication as >> applicability >> statement, architecture and or/solution, so the related work >> should be removed >> from the main text. But I find it mostly ready for use case and >> problem >> statement, more below. >> >> Review: >> >> Abstract >> >> This document discusses the problem statement and use cases of >> IPv6-based vehicular networking for Intelligent Transportation >> Systems (ITS). >> >> >>> The document goes beyond that; there was actually a thread at >> 6MAN where >> Bob Hinden said “ This document says it is a problem statement, >> but then >> becomes a solution document. Might be better to cut it down to >> only the >> problem statement part. “ >>> Would you consider doing this? If >> not, why? Note: >> you may want to respond on 6MAN as well. >>> >>>I would have >> thought that the >> traditional steps of problem statement and applicability >> statement of existing >> work could be expected from IPWAVE too. >>> Please clarify the >> steps that you >> intend to follow next with this work. >> >> <snip> >> >> 1. Introduction >> >> >>> Very readable and informative section, many thanks! >> >> Along with these WAVE standards and C-V2X standards, >> regardless of a >> wireless access technology under the IP stack of a vehicle, >> vehicular >> networks can operate IP mobility with IPv6 [RFC8200] and >> Mobile IPv6 >> protocols (e.g., Mobile IPv6 (MIPv6) [RFC6275], Proxy MIPv6 >> (PMIPv6) >> [RFC5213], Distributed Mobility Management (DMM) [RFC7333], >> Locator/ >> ID Separation Protocol (LISP) [RFC6830BIS], and Asymmetric >> Extended >> Route Optimization (AERO) [RFC6706BIS]). >> >> >>> NEMO (RFC 3963) is not cited. Any reason why the vehicle >> would not >> transport a network? >> >> <snip> >> >> This document describes use cases and a problem statement about >> IPv6-based vehicular networking for ITS, which is named IPv6 >> Wireless >> Access in Vehicular Environments (IPWAVE). First, it >> introduces the >> use cases for using V2V, V2I, and V2X networking in ITS. >> Next, for >> IPv6-based vehicular networks, it makes a gap analysis of current >> IPv6 protocols (e.g., IPv6 Neighbor Discovery, Mobility >> Management, >> and Security & Privacy), and then enumerates requirements for the >> extensions of those IPv6 protocols, which are tailored to >> IPv6-based >> vehicular networking. Thus, this document is intended to motivate >> development of key protocols for IPWAVE. >> >> >>> >> >> <snip> >> >> 2. Terminology >> >> >>> >> >> <snip> >> >> o IP-OBU: "Internet Protocol On-Board Unit": An IP-OBU denotes a >> computer situated in a vehicle (e.g., car, bicycle, autobike, >> motor cycle, and a similar one) and a device (e.g., >> smartphone and >> IoT device). It has at least one IP interface that runs in >> IEEE >> 802.11-OCB and has an "OBU" transceiver. Also, it may have >> an IP >> interface that runs in Cellular V2X (C-V2X) [TS-23.285-3GPP] >> [TR-22.886-3GPP][TS-23.287-3GPP]. See the definition of >> the term >> "OBU" in [RFC8691]. >> >> >>> Can that be a router connecting multiple computers? >> >> <snip> >> >> 3. Use Cases >> >> >>> This is another great read and an enlightening section. Maybe >> mention in >> the abstract that the doc also covers use cases? >> >> <snip> >> >> Although a Layer-2 solution can provide a support for multihop >> communications in vehicular networks, the scalability issue >> related >> to multihop forwarding still remains when vehicles need to >> disseminate or forward packets toward multihop-away >> destinations. In >> addition, the IPv6-based approach for V2V as a network layer >> protocol >> can accommodate multiple radio technologies as MAC protocols, >> such as >> 5G V2X and DSRC. Therefore, the existing IPv6 protocol can be >> augmented through the addition of an Overlay Multilink Network >> (OMNI) >> Interface [OMNI] and/or protocol changes in order to support both >> wireless single-hop/multihop V2V communications and multiple radio >> technologies in vehicular networks. In such a way, vehicles can >> communicate with each other by V2V communications to share >> either an >> emergency situation or road hazard in a highway having >> multiple kinds >> of radio technologies, such as 5G V2X and DSRC. >> >> >>> This text appears in the middle of high level use case, with >> a crude list >> of protocols; this is not a place for it >> >> >>> On a 6MAN Thread, Brian Carpenter said that the above: >> “ >> is of concern regardless of the mention of OMNI. Does it mean >> "can be" or >> "needs to be"? This paragraph seems like a very short summary of >> a big problem >> area. At the end of page 13 there is some related discussion, >> which mentions >> RPL as part of the solution (good choice, IMHO) but again seems >> to depend on >> OMNI. I don't think the fix of simply removing references to OMNI >> works, >> because it would leave a gap. In an informational document, that >> is not a >> formal problem but as far as this draft describes architecture, I >> don't think >> that big a gap is reasonable. "OMNI" is mentioned more than 20 >> times in the >> document. There are also several references to AERO, which is >> strongly >> associated with OMNI. “ >>> I agree with Brian. Here the document >> seems to be >> mixing solution with problem and putting the cart before the >> horse. My >> recommendation is to stick to what needs to be done that IPv6 >> does not do yet >> -the reqs and gaps-; but the doc should not step in the how >> things will be done >> unless the group already decided to do it. The logical next steps >> to a PS are >> an applicability statement of existing work, and if the gaps >> cannot be filled, >> there may be one or more WG chartered to fill those gaps. >> >> >>> I’d still be happy to see an annex with leads on where the >> solution might >> come from like RFC 8691 does. >> >> <snip> >> >> The existing IPv6 protocol must be augmented through the >> addition of >> an OMNI interface and/or protocol changes in order to support >> wireless multihop V2I communications in a highway where RSUs are >> sparsely deployed, so a vehicle can reach the wireless >> coverage of an >> RSU through the multihop data forwarding of intermediate vehicles. >> Thus, IPv6 needs to be extended for multihop V2I communications. >> >> >>> Note that I have no clue on how well OMNI applies in that >> space, maybe it >> does very well; but here it comes out of the blue with no >> justification. If you >> mention OMNI you need to detail what it is and which of the V2V >> problems you >> expect it to solve. But then, that’s beyond the scope of a PS. >> >> <snip> >> >> The existing IPv6 protocol must be augmented through the >> addition of >> an OMNI interface and/or protocol changes in order to support >> wireless multihop V2X (or V2I2X) communications in an urban road >> network where RSUs are deployed at intersections, so a vehicle >> (or a >> pedestrian's smartphone) can reach the wireless coverage of an RSU >> through the multihop data forwarding of intermediate vehicles (or >> pedestrians' smartphones). Thus, IPv6 needs to be extended for >> multihop V2X (or V2I2X) communications. >> >> >>> Please be more specific on what the missing functions are and >> whether they >> are missing from the stack development standpoint or if there’s >> work needed >> from the IETF. 1) If something is really missing in our >> specs, the text to >> prove from the use case above is missing 2) how OMNI serves the >> use case >> could be elaborated in an applicability statement of OMNI for >> V2xyz, but it is >> a bit blunt to present it as panacea when the problems to be >> solved are not >> listed. 3) If you look at it, OMNI seems like a software >> mobile router >> within a bump in the stack. Can that become too big? >> >> >>> my view is that the text above and the similar occasions >> should be replaced >> by something like : >> >> The existing IPv6 protocol must be augmented to provide the >> following >> functions: 1) … >> >> >>> and / or something like: >> >> In addition to the IPv6 node requirements [RFC 8504], the IPv6 >> protocol >> stack for use in a vehicle must support 1) RFC blah, 2) … >> >> <snip> >> >> To support applications of these V2X use cases, the functions >> of IPv6 >> such as VND, VMM, and VSP are prerequisites for IPv6-based packet >> exchange, transport-layer session continuity, and secure, safe >> communication between a vehicle and a pedestrian either >> directly or >> indirectly via an IP-RSU. >> >> >>> “the functions of IPv6 such as VND, VMM, and VSP” does not >> parse. There’s >> no IPv6 reference that provides those functions. If the intention >> is to say >> that there’s stuff to add to IPv6 to support, like, say, VND, >> then this >> document fails to define how an IPv6 VND should behave, though >> it’s precisely >> what I’d expect from a problem statement. >> >> <snip> >> >> 4. Vehicular Networks >> >> >>> What is the purpose of section 4 as a whole, problem statement or >> applicability statement of the listed protocols? In the former >> case what’s the >> problem? In the latter case it is incomplete and needs to be >> exported to an >> applicability statement doc with all the possible technologies >> evaluated. >> >> This section describes an example vehicular network architecture >> supporting V2V, V2I, and V2X communications in vehicular networks. >> >> >>> I read this as presenting a context to explain what the >> problems are >> instead of presenting the IPVAWE “architecture”. Maybe using the term >> “Architecture” here is misleading and led to Bob’s comment. >> >> <snip> >> >> 4.1. Vehicular Network Architecture >> >> Figure 1 shows an example vehicular network architecture for >> V2I and >> V2V in a road network [OMNI]. >> >> a. Is using OMNI a decision that the WG made for the future >> work ? what >> does it do and what does it not do? b. Is there work left to >> be done? Who >> will do that work? Or is it the expectation that OMNI has it all >> defined >> already? >> >> <snip> >> >> An existing network architecture (e.g., an IP-based aeronautical >> network architecture [OMNI][UAM-ITS], a network architecture of >> PMIPv6 [RFC5213], and a low-power and lossy network architecture >> [RFC6550]) can be extended to a vehicular network architecture for >> multihop V2V, V2I, and V2X, as shown in Figure 1. In a highway >> scenario, a vehicle may not access an RSU directly because of the >> distance of the DSRC coverage (up to 1 km). For example, the OMNI >> interface and/or RPL (IPv6 Routing Protocol for Low-Power and >> Lossy >> Networks) [RFC6550] can be extended to support a multihop V2I >> since a >> vehicle can take advantage of other vehicles as relay nodes to >> reach >> the RSU. Also, RPL can be extended to support both multihop >> V2V and >> V2X in the similar way. >> >> >>> all this could fit well in annex; anyway you need to explain >> what you >> expect the protocols to do and which extension is needed. In the >> case of RPL at >> least you indicate that it would do routing, but not why you >> cannot use it of >> the shelf; for OMNI, what you expect is less clear, though >> there’s text >> elsewhere about the many radio interfaces that could be used for >> the purpose, >> and the text in the UAM below that is enlightening. >> >> <snip> >> >> To support not only the mobility >> management of the UAM end systems, but also the multihop and >> multilink communications of the UAM interfaces, the UAM end >> systems >> can employ an Overlay Multilink Network (OMNI) interface >> [OMNI] as a >> virtual Non-Broadcast Multiple Access (NBMA) connection to a >> serving >> ground domain infrastructure. >> >> >>> Again, what is the expectation for OMNI? As an overlay it >> requires an >> underlay; when connecting to a MANET it needs support for that >> MANET. The text >> above seems to imply that is solves everything in V2xyz like >> magic; reminds me >> of the IPv6 multicast abstraction that was supposed to solve the >> broadcast >> problem and ended up worsening it. >> >> <snip> >> >> This infrastructure can be configured >> over the underlying data links. The OMNI interface and its link >> model provide a means of multilink, multihop and mobility >> coordination to the legacy IPv6 ND messaging [RFC4861] >> according to >> the NBMA principle. Thus, the OMNI link model can support >> efficient >> UAM internetworking services without additional mobility >> messaging, >> and without any modification to the IPv6 ND messaging services or >> link model. >> >> >>> Again, what is the expectation for OMNI? As an overlay it >> requires an >> underlay; the text above seems to imply that is solves everything >> in V2xyz like >> magic; that would be a stretch, that reminds me of IPv6 multicast >> that was >> supposed to solve the broadcast problem and ended up worsening it. >> >> <snip> >> >> Multiple vehicles under the coverage of an RSU share a prefix >> just as >> mobile nodes share a prefix of a Wi-Fi access point in a wireless >> LAN. This is a natural characteristic in infrastructure-based >> wireless networks. For example, in Figure 1, two vehicles (i.e., >> Vehicle2, and Vehicle5) can use Prefix 1 to configure their IPv6 >> global addresses for V2I communication. Alternatively, mobile >> nodes >> can employ an OMNI interface and use their own IPv6 Unique Local >> Addresses (ULAs) [RFC4193] over the wireless network without >> requiring the messaging of IPv6 Stateless Address >> Autoconfiguration >> (SLAAC) [RFC4862], which uses an on-link prefix provided by the >> (visited) wireless LAN; this technique is known as >> "Bring-Your-Own- >> Addresses". >> >> >>> Is OMNI the only way to "Bring-Your-Own-Addresses”? Else the >> text could be >> more generic, at least use e.g., like the ref to AERO later. >>> >> What are the >> implications / limitations of doing that – like they can do line >> of sight V2V >> but not reach the internet, or the need of a local MANET / RPL >> that will >> accept to route those addresses, or the security / address >> ownership validation >> issues ? >> >> <snip> >> >> A single subnet prefix announced by an RSU can span multiple >> vehicles >> in VANET. For example, in Figure 1, for Prefix 1, three vehicles >> (i.e., Vehicle1, Vehicle2, and Vehicle5) can construct a connected >> VANET. Also, for Prefix 2, two vehicles (i.e., Vehicle3 and >> Vehicle6) can construct another connected VANET, and for Prefix 3, >> two vehicles (i.e., Vehicle4 and Vehicle7) can construct another >> connected VANET. Alternatively, each vehicle could employ an OMNI >> interface with their own ULAs such that no topologically-oriented >> subnet prefixes need be announced by the RSU. >> >> >>> same as above. This seems to restate the same thing, derive >> an address >> from a topologically correct prefix or use your own with >> limitations to be >> described. >> >> <snip> >> >> For IPv6 packets transported over IEEE 802.11-OCB, [RFC8691] >> specifies several details, including Maximum Transmission Unit >> (MTU), >> frame format, link-local address, address mapping for unicast and >> multicast, stateless autoconfiguration, and subnet structure. An >> Ethernet Adaptation (EA) layer is in charge of transforming some >> parameters between the IEEE 802.11 MAC layer and the IPv6 network >> layer, which is located between the IEEE 802.11-OCB's logical link >> control layer and the IPv6 network layer. This IPv6 over >> 802.11-OCB >> can be used for both V2V and V2I in IPv6-based vehicular networks. >> >> >>> solution space. >> >> <snip> >> >> An IPv6 mobility solution is needed for the guarantee of >> communication continuity in vehicular networks so that a vehicle's >> TCP session can be continued, or UDP packets can be delivered to a >> vehicle as a destination without loss while it moves from an >> IP-RSU's >> wireless coverage to another IP-RSU's wireless coverage. In >> Figure 1, assuming that Vehicle2 has a TCP session (or a UDP >> session) >> with a corresponding node in the vehicular cloud, Vehicle2 can >> move >> from IP-RSU1's wireless coverage to IP-RSU2's wireless >> coverage. In >> this case, a handover for Vehicle2 needs to be performed by >> either a >> host-based mobility management scheme (e.g., MIPv6 [RFC6275]) or a >> network-based mobility management scheme (e.g., PMIPv6 >> [RFC5213] and >> AERO [RFC6706BIS]). >> >> In the host-based mobility scheme (e.g., MIPv6), an IP-RSU plays a >> role of a home agent. On the other hand, in the network-based >> mobility scheme (e.g., PMIPv6, an MA plays a role of a mobility >> management controller such as a Local Mobility Anchor (LMA) in >> PMIPv6, which also serves vehicles as a home agent, and an IP-RSU >> plays a role of an access router such as a Mobile Access Gateway >> (MAG) in PMIPv6 [RFC5213]. The host-based mobility scheme needs >> client functionality in IPv6 stack of a vehicle as a mobile >> node for >> mobility signaling message exchange between the vehicle and home >> agent. On the other hand, the network-based mobility scheme >> does not >> need such a client functionality for a vehicle because the network >> infrastructure node (e.g., MAG in PMIPv6) as a proxy mobility >> agent >> handles the mobility signaling message exchange with the home >> agent >> (e.g., LMA in PMIPv6) for the sake of the vehicle. >> >> There are a scalability issue and a route optimization issue >> in the >> network-based mobility scheme (e.g., PMIPv6) when an MA covers a >> large vehicular network governing many IP-RSUs. In this case, a >> distributed mobility scheme (e.g., DMM [RFC7429]) can mitigate the >> scalability issue by distributing multiple MAs in the vehicular >> network such that they are positioned closer to vehicles for route >> optimization and bottleneck mitigation in a central MA in the >> network-based mobility scheme. All these mobility approaches >> (i.e., >> a host-based mobility scheme, network-based mobility scheme, and >> distributed mobility scheme) and a hybrid approach of a >> combination >> of them need to provide an efficient mobility service to vehicles >> moving fast and moving along with the relatively predictable >> trajectories along the roadways. >> >> In vehicular networks, the control plane can be separated from the >> data plane for efficient mobility management and data >> forwarding by >> using the concept of Software-Defined Networking (SDN) >> [RFC7149][DMM-FPC]. Note that Forwarding Policy Configuration >> (FPC) >> in [DMM-FPC], which is a flexible mobility management system, can >> manage the separation of data-plane and control-plane in DMM. In >> SDN, the control plane and data plane are separated for the >> efficient >> management of forwarding elements (e.g., switches and routers) >> where >> an SDN controller configures the forwarding elements in a >> centralized >> way and they perform packet forwarding according to their >> forwarding >> tables that are configured by the SDN controller. An MA as an SDN >> controller needs to efficiently configure and monitor its >> IP-RSUs and >> vehicles for mobility management, location management, and >> security >> services. >> >> The mobility information of a GPS receiver mounted in its vehicle >> (e.g., position, speed, and direction) can be used to accommodate >> mobility-aware proactive handover schemes, which can perform the >> handover of a vehicle according to its mobility and the wireless >> signal strength of a vehicle and an IP-RSU in a proactive way. >> >> Vehicles can use the TCC as their Home Network having a home agent >> for mobility management as in MIPv6 [RFC6275] and PMIPv6 >> [RFC5213], >> so the TCC (or an MA inside the TCC) maintains the mobility >> information of vehicles for location management. IP tunneling >> over >> the wireless link should be avoided for performance efficiency. >> Also, in vehicular networks, asymmetric links sometimes exist and >> must be considered for wireless communications such as V2V and >> V2I. >> >> >>> This is all very informative text but does not state a >> problem. Is there a >> problem is left to be solved or are we assessing the applicability of >> protocols? Could it for instance, forward point to issues >> discussed in section >> 5? >> >> <snip> >> >> As shown in Figure 3, as internal networks, a vehicle's moving >> network and an EN's fixed network are self-contained networks >> having >> multiple subnets and having an edge router (e.g., IP-OBU and >> IP-RSU) >> for the communication with another vehicle or another EN. The >> internetworking between two internal networks via V2I >> communication >> requires the exchange of the network parameters and the network >> prefixes of the internal networks. For the efficiency, the >> network >> prefixes of the internal networks (as a moving network) in a >> vehicle >> need to be delegated and configured automatically. Note that a >> moving network's network prefix can be called a Mobile Network >> Prefix >> (MNP) [OMNI]. >> >> >>> Then again you’re overselling OMNI. MNP is originally defined >> here >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3963#section-2 >> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3963#section-2> and >> that’s a reference >> you can use normatively. >> >> <snip> >> >> As shown in Figure 3, the addresses used for IPv6 >> transmissions over >> the wireless link interfaces for IP-OBU and IP-RSU can be either >> global IPv6 addresses, or IPv6 ULAs as long as IPv6 packets can be >> routed within vehicular networks [OMNI]. >> >> >>> Then again you’re overselling OMNI. There needs to be a >> routing protocol >> like a MANET that will accept to carry the >> MNPs, and that must be implemented by the infra and both cars. >> The OMNI spec >> is clear on that. This is why at first glance I see OMNI as a >> full mobile >> router in a bump in the stack. Now what is the problem behind >> this? No such >> protocol at IETF? Too many to choose from? No deployment? >> <snip> >> >> When global IPv6 addresses >> are used, wireless interface configuration and control >> overhead for >> Duplicate Address Detection (DAD) [RFC4862] and Multicast Listener >> Discovery (MLD) [RFC2710][RFC3810] should be minimized to >> support V2I >> and V2X communications for vehicles moving fast along >> roadways; when >> ULAs and the OMNI interface are used, no DAD nor MLD messaging is >> needed. >> >> >>> Then again you’re overselling OMNI. Isn’t it the no dad >> needed a property >> of injecting a BYOA in the fabric for an GUA MIP Home Address >> which is known to >> be unique at home? >>> OTOH, autoconf’ing a random ULA >> “FD…”prefix has lesser >> DAD properties than autoconf’ing a random 64bit IID in a >> classical subnet. So >> who says DAD isn’t required for OMNI ULA? >>> note that IMHO DAD >> on wireless is >> a lot more harm than good, and I agree that with a good pseudo >> random generator >> the ULA has no chance to collision in the real world, as OMNI >> claims. It’s just >> that your argument here plays the other way, because there are >> less random bits >> (56) in the ULA prefix than in the IID (62), and if one starts >> using more >> prefix bits to be non-random, there will be a time when DAD on >> prefix is needed. >> >> <snip> >> >> Let us consider the upload/download time of a vehicle when it >> passes >> through the wireless communication coverage of an IP-RSU. For a >> given typical setting where 1km is the maximum DSRC communication >> range [DSRC] and 100km/h is the speed limit in highway, the >> dwelling >> time can be calculated to be 72 seconds by dividing the >> diameter of >> the 2km (i.e., two times of DSRC communication range where an >> IP-RSU >> is located in the center of the circle of wireless >> communication) by >> the speed limit of 100km/h (i.e., about 28m/s). For the 72 >> seconds, >> a vehicle passing through the coverage of an IP-RSU can upload and >> download data packets to/from the IP-RSU. >> >> <snip> >> >> 4.3. V2V-based Internetworking >> >> >>> In this section it looks like the cars are in a stable line >> of sight >> relationship. Which is probably fine for a platoon, but when you >> drive along >> with friends in different cars, you realize that the line of >> sight assumption >> does not stand over time. Soon enough, other cars meddle in, and >> possibly one >> of the cars drives faster and too far ahead so you need the infra >> to relay, >> possibly over multiple infra hops. >> >> >>> so in this section, I’d expect to see a Vehicle communicating >> with another >> one and using either line of sight or V2V relaying but also using >> relay via V2I >> (multihop I2I not just hub and spoke V2I2V ), alternatively to >> together for >> redundancy. Is that part of the problem? >> >> >>> reading deeper section 5 I found excellent text on routing >> via V and via I. >> This tells that section 4 does not play a good role at justifying >> section 5. >> Maybe keep section 4 for another doc? >> >> >>> What kind or reliability is required in a V2V use case? Do >> you think ND can >> handle it? Or MANET? What would be the assumption on L2 (roaming >> time, unicast >> vs P2MP) and on L3 (reliability ala DetNet/RAW). Should we have >> some L3 >> redundancy? >> >> <snip> >> >> 5. Problem Statement >> >> <snip> >> >> In order to specify protocols using the architecture mentioned in >> Section 4.1, IPv6 core protocols have to be adapted to overcome >> certain challenging aspects of vehicular networking. Since the >> vehicles are likely to be moving at great speed, protocol >> exchanges >> need to be completed in a time relatively short compared to the >> lifetime of a link between a vehicle and an IP-RSU, or between two >> vehicles. >> >> >>> Any order of magnitude? >> >>> Can you indicate whether this already rules out certain >> procedures, e.g. >> DAD ? >> >> The lifetime of a session varies depending on the session's >> type such >> as a web surfing, voice call over IP, and DNS query. >> Regardless of a >> session's type, to guide all the IPv6 packets to their destination >> host, IP mobility should be supported for the session. >> >> >>> this seems to be for unicast when you know who to talk to. Is >> there a need >> some multicast groups like anybody around interested in topic >> blah like I could >> be multicasting the speed of vehicles coming the other way that I >> crossed >> recently, for use of vehicles that I’m crossing now, so they can >> see a slowdown >> on advance >> >> Thus, the time constraint of a wireless link has a major impact on >> IPv6 Neighbor Discovery (ND). Mobility Management (MM) is also >> vulnerable to disconnections that occur before the completion of >> identity verification and tunnel management. This is >> especially true >> given the unreliable nature of wireless communication. This >> section >> presents key topics such as neighbor discovery and mobility >> management. >> >> >>> Only ND? What about the MANET? >> >>> how fast should ND be to be suitable? >> >>> is there also a bandwidth check? You can make things much >> faster if you >> dedicate a lot of spectrum to it. But that can also be a waste. >> >> 5.1. Neighbor Discovery >> >> <snip> >> >> The requirements for IPv6 ND for vehicular networks are >> efficient DAD >> and NUD operations. >> >> >>> Not lookup? Is it the intention to use IP unicast over MAC >> broadcast, which >> is a good idea in my book? >> >> <snip> >> >> This merging and partitioning should be considered for the >> IPv6 ND such as IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) >> [RFC4862]. >> >> >>> Not lookup? Is it the intention to use IP unicast over MAC >> broadcast, which >> is a good idea in my book? >> >> <snip> >> >> Also, the partitioning of a VANET may make vehicles with the same >> prefix be physically unreachable. Also, SLAAC needs to >> prevent IPv6 >> address duplication due to the merging of VANETs. According >> to the >> merging and partitioning, a destination vehicle (as an IPv6 host) >> needs to be distinguished as either an on-link host or an off-link >> host even though the source vehicle uses the same prefix as the >> destination vehicle. >> >> >>> should reference to draft-nordmark-intarea-ippl >> >> To efficiently prevent IPv6 address duplication due to the VANET >> partitioning and merging from happening in vehicular networks, the >> vehicular networks need to support a vehicular-network-wide DAD by >> defining a scope that is compatible with the legacy DAD. In this >> case, two vehicles can communicate with each other when there >> exists >> a communication path over VANET or a combination of VANETs and IP- >> RSUs, as shown in Figure 1. By using the >> vehicular-network-wide DAD, >> vehicles can assure that their IPv6 addresses are unique in the >> vehicular network whenever they are connected to the vehicular >> infrastructure or become disconnected from it in the form of >> VANET. >> >> >>> Excellent >> >> ND time-related parameters such as router lifetime and Neighbor >> Advertisement (NA) interval need to be adjusted for vehicle >> speed and >> vehicle density. For example, the NA interval needs to be >> dynamically adjusted according to a vehicle's speed so that the >> vehicle can maintain its neighboring vehicles in a stable way, >> considering the collision probability with the NA messages sent by >> other vehicles. >> >> >>> Is that a problem or just an operational setting that needs >> to be found? >> >>> Do we need to reconsider the concepts of those timers? >> >> <snip> >> >> Thus, in IPv6-based vehicular networking, IPv6 ND should have >> minimum >> changes for the interoperability with the legacy IPv6 ND used >> in the >> Internet, including the DAD and NUD operations. >> >> >>> I do not find the logical link with the text before, why is >> this a “thus”? >> >>> why should the ND inside the VANET be constrained to be >> interoperable? This >> may place constraints on the solution. >> >> 5.1.1. Link Model >> >> A prefix model for a vehicular network needs to facilitate the >> >> >>> Do you mean a “subnet model” as opposed to “prefix model”. >> >>> it would make this piece and the next should refer to >> draft-thubert-6man-ipv6-over-wireless for IPv6 over P2MP /NBMA, >> for both link >> and subnet issues. The general ideas are the same, but the gory >> details here >> are slightly incorrect, like this notion of prefix model than >> comes out of the >> blue. The model is really the subnet model for the subnet >> associated to P2MP. >> >> communication between two vehicles with the same prefix >> regardless of >> the vehicular network topology as long as there exist >> bidirectional >> E2E paths between them in the vehicular network including >> VANETs and >> IP-RSUs. This prefix model allows vehicles with the same >> prefix to >> communicate with each other via a combination of multihop V2V and >> multihop V2I with VANETs and IP-RSUs. Note that the OMNI >> interface >> supports an NBMA link model where multihop V2V and V2I >> communications >> use each mobile node's ULAs without need for any DAD or MLD >> messaging. >> >> >>> again overselling OMNI. >> >>> I kinda agree about the OMNI interface model, nothing against >> that. But you >> must see that there needs a lot more than what the OMNI interface >> to get >> packets across V and I hops to the destination. Like routing ala >> MANET, >> redundancy handling ala DetNet because it will be very lossy, >> path management >> ala RAW to optimize delivery vs. spectrum… And OMNI ignores ND so >> it does not >> solve the ND problems above. >> >> IPv6 protocols work under certain assumptions that do not >> necessarily >> hold for vehicular wireless access link types other than OMNI/NBMA >> [VIP-WAVE][RFC5889]; the rest of this section discusses >> implications >> for those link types that do not apply when the OMNI/NBMA link >> model >> >> >>> again overselling OMNI. >> >>> The keyword here is P2MP / NBMA, and OMNI is one interface >> that accepts >> that. There are others. IBM’s IPv4 over Frame relay was already >> P2MP / NBMA, >> using routing to complete the partial mesh in P2MP. The text >> seems to imply >> that OMNI is the only way to do that and that’s wrong. Also OMNI >> is loaded with >> other stuff than a plain P2MP capable interface. And ND over P2MP >> is not done >> by OMNI, OMNI only makes classical ND worse and only works in a >> full mesh. OTOH >> RFC 8505, which is designed to do ND for P2MP /NBMA would indeed >> work very well >> within an OMNI interface and solve those problems. >>> My point >> is that you >> need to tell the full story or refrain from entering solution >> space in this doc >> >> <snip> >> >> There is a relationship between a link and a prefix, besides the >> different scopes that are expected from the link-local and global >> types of IPv6 addresses. In an IPv6 link, it is assumed that all >> interfaces which are configured with the same subnet prefix >> and with >> on-link bit set can communicate with each other on an IPv6 link. >> >> >>> not assumed; that’s what the onlink but set tells. The >> conclusion should be >> that the VANET cannot set the O bit. >> >> However, the vehicular link model needs to define the relationship >> between a link and a prefix, considering the dynamics of wireless >> links and the characteristics of VANET. >> >> <snip> >> >> From the previous observation, a vehicular link model should >> consider >> the frequent partitioning and merging of VANETs due to vehicle >> mobility. Therefore, the vehicular link model needs to use an on- >> link prefix and off-link prefix according to the network >> topology of >> vehicles such as a one-hop reachable network and a multihop >> reachable >> >> >>> No, the once a node saw a O bit set that sticks even if it >> sees other >> advertisements of the PIO with the O bit not set. >>> This is a >> global and >> intrinsic property of the prefix (and an attack vector that could >> be mentioned >> in the sec section). >>> the VANET prefix must never come with >> the O bit set. >> >> <snip> >> >> network (or partitioned networks). If the vehicles with the same >> prefix are reachable from each other in one hop, the prefix >> should be >> on-link. >> >> >>>> No, see above; but the router may redirect though it is >> really risky >> unless this is a stable situation like a parking place. >> >> Thus, in IPv6-based vehicular networking, the vehicular link model >> should have minimum changes for interoperability with standard >> IPv6 >> links in an efficient fashion to support IPv6 DAD, MLD and NUD >> operations. When the OMNI NBMA link model is used, there are >> no link >> model changes nor DAD/MLD messaging required. >> >> >>>> again overselling OMNI. >> >>>> You need a good P2MP subnet model with routing support when >> the mesh is >> partial. My company alone has been shipping million of nodes that >> build subnets >> of thousands, and that was done using IETF standards. >> >> <snip> >> >> For vehicular networks with high mobility and density, the DAD >> needs >> to be performed efficiently with minimum overhead so that the >> vehicles can exchange a driving safety message (e.g., collision >> avoidance and accident notification) with each other with a short >> interval (e.g., 0.5 second) by a technical report from NHTSA >> (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) >> [NHTSA-ACAS-Report]. >> Such a driving safety message may include a vehicle's mobility >> information (i.e., position, speed, direction, and acceleration/ >> deceleration). The exchange interval of this message is 0.5 >> second, >> which is required to allow a driver to avoid a rear-end crash from >> another vehicle. >> >> >>> IPv6 over broadcast MAC (used to be called internet 0, 10+ >> years ago) >> solves that MAC issue since there is no MAC. >> >> 5.1.3. Routing >> >> For multihop V2V communications in either a VANET or VANETs >> via IP- >> RSUs, a vehicular Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANET) routing >> protocol may >> be required to support both unicast and multicast in the links >> of the >> subnet with the same IPv6 prefix. However, it will be costly >> to run >> both vehicular ND and a vehicular ad hoc routing protocol in >> terms of >> control traffic overhead [ID-Multicast-Problems]. >> >> >>> we do that with IETF standards on battery operated devices >> already. Using >> RFC 8505 for the UNI and RPL for the NNI. It is scalable (we’ve >> seen 30 hops in >> meshes of thousands in the real world though it’s not the normal >> operational >> model, but can happen to maintain connectivity during the reboot >> of a root) and >> does not use broadcast. RPL was initially designed as a V2V2V >> protocol but >> found its market on the IoT. I’m sure the protocol would gladly >> come back to >> its roots. >> >> A routing protocol for a VANET may cause redundant wireless >> frames in >> the air to check the neighborhood of each vehicle and compute the >> routing information in a VANET with a dynamic network topology >> because the IPv6 ND is used to check the neighborhood of each >> vehicle. Thus, the vehicular routing needs to take advantage >> of the >> IPv6 ND to minimize its control overhead. >> >> >>> A clean description of the interaction of RPL and RFC 8505 in >> our IoT >> networks. Note that the speed of the PHY in VANET balanced the >> instability of >> the topology, and RPL still applies. Note also that RPL uses DV >> with a routing >> stretch in order to minimize the topology awareness that’s needed >> in each node, >> which results in minimal signaling. >> >> 5.2. Mobility Management >> >> <snip> >> >> For a mobility management scheme in a shared link, where the >> wireless >> subnets of multiple IP-RSUs share the same prefix, an efficient >> vehicular-network-wide DAD is required. If DHCPv6 is used to >> assign >> a unique IPv6 address to each vehicle in this shared link, >> >> >>> I would not use the term link, or shared. Maybe shared link >> -> domain? >> <snip> >> >> the DAD is >> not required. On the other hand, for a mobility management scheme >> with a unique prefix per mobile node (e.g., PMIPv6 [RFC5213] >> and OMNI >> [OMNI]), DAD is not required because the IPv6 address of a >> vehicle's >> external wireless interface is guaranteed to be unique. >> >> >>> again overselling OMNI >> >>> As I said earlier, this is wring there are (64*) more chances >> of a >> collision in OMNI prefixes than in IPv6 IIDs. >>> OMNI prefixes >> can collision, >> home addresses that are unique on a home network cannot. >>> Now >> if both the >> OMNI prefix and the IID are good randoms, then obviously, the >> chances of >> collisions round up to 0. >>> Collision is certainly not my worst >> fear. >> >> There is a >> tradeoff between the prefix usage efficiency and DAD >> overhead. Thus, >> the IPv6 address autoconfiguration for vehicular networks needs to >> consider this tradeoff to support efficient mobility management. >> >> >>> This is way too superficial and hides the reality of things. >> - Using a VANET Infra prefix allows direct routability to the >> internet which >> BYOA does not since the BYOA is not topologically correct. Yes, >> it costs a DAD >> with classic ND, but it does not with RCF8505 and the draft fails >> to mention >> that. - A BYOA needs a tunnel home, and the node needs to know >> who is reachable >> inside the VANET and what is not to decide to tunnel or not; this >> is a >> difficult problem (vs. control place overhead) that is not >> discussed here. >> >> <snip> >> >> For the case of a multihomed network, a vehicle can follow the >> first- >> hop router selection rule described in [RFC8028]. That is, the >> vehicle should select its default router for each prefix by >> preferring the router that advertised the prefix. >> >> >>> Still router discovery (in and out) must be very fast. Thing >> of the RA >> intervale in MIPv6. Is that sufficient? Too expensive? >> >> <snip> >> >> 6. Security Considerations >> >>> Any discussion on the security of classical ND and other >> operational issues >> (rfc6583) ? >> >> <snip> >> >> Security and privacy are paramount in V2I, V2V, and V2X >> networking. >> Vehicles and infrastructure must be authenticated in order to >> participate in vehicular networking. Also, in-vehicle devices >> (e.g., >> ECU) and a driver/passenger's mobile devices (e.g., smartphone and >> tablet PC) in a vehicle need to communicate with other in-vehicle >> devices and another driver/passenger's mobile devices in another >> vehicle, or other servers behind an IP-RSU in a secure way. Even >> though a vehicle is perfectly authenticated and legitimate, it >> may be >> hacked for running malicious applications to track and collect its >> and other vehicles' information. In this case, an attack >> mitigation >> process may be required to reduce the aftermath of malicious >> behaviors. >> >> >>> The section should mention that both with classical ND and >> BYOA, addresses >> can be impersonated, and RFC 8928 protects against that in both >> cases while >> maintaining privacy. >> >> Even though vehicles can be authenticated with valid >> certificates by >> an authentication server in the vehicular cloud, the authenticated >> >> >>> Is PKI feasible (deploying it in every car?). Is it fast >> enough? Is it >> really what IPWAVE thinks vehicle should use????? >>> e.g. why >> would one need >> to authenticate to a V2I network? >>> from the text earlier in >> the doc, it >> seemed that what you really want is access that is fast to join, >> capable of >> offering the reachability you want, anonymous, and innocuous >> (cars can not harm >> one another). >> >> vehicles may harm other vehicles, so their communication >> activities >> need to be logged in either a central way through a logging server >> (e.g., TCC) in the vehicular cloud or a distributed way (e.g., >> blockchain [Bitcoin]) along with other vehicles or infrastructure. >> For the non-repudiation of the harmful activities of malicious >> nodes, >> a blockchain technology can be used [Bitcoin]. Each message from a >> vehicle can be treated as a transaction and the neighboring >> vehicles >> can play the role of peers in a consensus method of a blockchain >> [Bitcoin][Vehicular-BlockChain]. For a blockchain's efficient >> consensus in vehicular networks having fast moving vehicles, a new >> consensus algorithm needs to be developed or an existing consensus >> algorithm needs to be enhanced. >> >> >>> solution space; better express the security needs since this >> is a PS. >> >> <snip> >> >> To identify malicious vehicles among vehicles, an authentication >> method is required. >> >> >>> No. As said earlier a vehicle can be infected. You need >> innocuousness.which >> can come from things like isolation, zerotrust, and protocols >> that are >> difficult to hack around. Classical IPv6 ND is open bar. RFC >> 8505/8928 is >> protected by construction, anonymous, and fast. >> >> <snip> >> >> For the setup of a secure channel over IPsec or TLS, the >> multihop V2I >> communications over DSRC is required in a highway for the >> authentication by involving multiple intermediate vehicles as >> relay >> nodes toward an IP-RSU connected to an authentication server >> in the >> vehicular cloud. The V2I communications over 5G V2X (or LTE >> V2X) is >> required to allow a vehicle to communicate directly with a >> gNodeB (or >> eNodeB) connected to an authentication server in the vehicular >> cloud. >> >> >>> solution space. Instead, you could mention that setting up >> secured channels >> between cars that cross one another might not complete in time to >> establish the >> communication channel, and that the innocuousness must come from >> zerotrust in >> the transactions between the cars. >> For the IPv6 ND, the DAD is required to ensure the uniqueness >> of the >> IPv6 address of a vehicle's wireless interface. >> >> >>> for classical ND (SLAAC) that’s true. That is not with RFC >> 8505, since the >> infra maintains a table of all addresses in use in the prefix and >> blocks >> duplicates without the RFC 4862 DAD method. The stateful autoconf >> address grant >> is immediate. >> >> This DAD can be used >> as a flooding attack that uses the DAD-related ND packets >> disseminated over the VANET or vehicular networks. >> >> >>> also for DOS attacks. You can block a owner from using an >> address. A >> reference to rfc6959 is much needed here. >> >> <snip> >> >> This possibility >> indicates that the vehicles and IP-RSUs need to filter out >> suspicious >> ND traffic in advance. Based on the SEND [RFC3971] mechanism, the >> authentication for routers (i.e., IP-RSUs) can be conducted by >> only >> selecting an IP-RSU that has a certification path toward trusted >> parties. For authenticating other vehicles, the cryptographically >> generated address (CGA) can be used to verify the true owner of a >> received ND message, which requires to use the CGA ND option >> in the >> ND protocols. For a general protection of the ND mechanism, >> the RSA >> Signature ND option can also be used to protect the integrity >> of the >> messages by public key signatures. For a more advanced >> authentication mechanism, a distributed blockchain-based mechanism >> [Vehicular-BlockChain] can be used. >> >> >>> solution space. Again, the draft should focus on problems and >> needs. The >> problem here is that SEND is complex, and not implemented in the >> major stack. >> It relies on PKI for trusting the router. The V2I need is a >> zerotrust model >> where one V, the other local Vs, and the I, can help each other >> anonymously and >> harmlessly. <snip> >> >> 8. Informative References >> >> >>> no normative reference? >> >> >>> no normative reference? >> >> <snip> >> >> Voila! >> >> Keep safe; >> >> Pascal >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> its mailing list >> its@ietf.org <mailto:its@ietf.org> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its >> <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> its mailing list >> its@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
- [ipwave] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-ip… Pascal Thubert via Datatracker
- Re: [ipwave] Intdir last call review of draft-iet… Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: [ipwave] Intdir last call review of draft-iet… Erik Kline
- [ipwave] Fwd: Intdir last call review of draft-ie… CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO
- Re: [ipwave] Fwd: Intdir last call review of draf… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [ipwave] Fwd: Intdir last call review of draf… CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO
- Re: [ipwave] Intdir last call review of draft-iet… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [ipwave] Intdir last call review of draft-iet… CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO
- Re: [ipwave] Intdir last call review of draft-iet… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [ipwave] Intdir last call review of draft-iet… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [ipwave] [Int-dir] Intdir last call review of… Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
- Re: [ipwave] Intdir last call review of draft-iet… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [ipwave] Intdir last call review of draft-iet… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [ipwave] Intdir last call review of draft-iet… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [ipwave] Intdir last call review of draft-iet… CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO
- Re: [ipwave] Intdir last call review of draft-iet… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [ipwave] Intdir last call review of draft-iet… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [ipwave] Intdir last call review of draft-iet… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [ipwave] Intdir last call review of draft-iet… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [ipwave] Intdir last call review of draft-iet… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [ipwave] Intdir last call review of draft-iet… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Intdir last call review of draft-iet… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Intdir last call review of draft-iet… Michael Richardson
- Re: [ipwave] Intdir last call review of draft-iet… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [ipwave] Intdir last call review of draft-iet… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [ipwave] [EXTERNAL] Re: Intdir last call revi… Templin (US), Fred L
- Re: [ipwave] Intdir last call review of draft-iet… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [ipwave] [EXTERNAL] Re: Intdir last call revi… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [ipwave] Intdir last call review of draft-iet… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- [ipwave] Platooning comments on draft-ietf-ipwave… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Platooning comments on draft-ietf-ip… Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: [ipwave] Intdir last call review of draft-iet… Erik Kline
- Re: [ipwave] [EXTERNAL] Re: Intdir last call revi… Templin (US), Fred L