Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 figure comparing .11 to .11-OCB

Jérôme Härri <jerome.haerri@eurecom.fr> Wed, 01 February 2017 11:16 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 C24DA129CF0 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 03:16:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 P5x6zF13m0g5 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 03:15:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp2.eurecom.fr (smtp3.eurecom.fr [193.55.113.213]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E97712940D for <its@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 03:15:57 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.33,319,1477954800"; d="scan'208,217";a="5707134"
Received: from monza.eurecom.fr ([192.168.106.15]) by drago2i.eurecom.fr with ESMTP; 01 Feb 2017 12:15:56 +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 5F8EBDFF; Wed, 1 Feb 2017 12:15:56 +0100 (CET)
From: Jérôme Härri <jerome.haerri@eurecom.fr>
To: "'Dr. Hans-Joachim Fischer'" <HJFischer@fischer-tech.eu>, 'Alexandre PETRESCU' <alexandre.petrescu@cea.fr>
References: <148052970170.9607.12043916621198119260.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <c5e320a9-6c3d-17bc-bbee-1994ffd3f7a4@gmail.com> <51c7f6d4-a998-bc91-1b01-3b9f06fb61fc@fischer-tech.eu>
In-Reply-To: <51c7f6d4-a998-bc91-1b01-3b9f06fb61fc@fischer-tech.eu>
Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 12:15:56 +0100
Organization: EURECOM
Message-ID: <006301d27c7c$8efefc30$acfcf490$@eurecom.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0064_01D27C84.F0C5D530"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0
Thread-Index: AQJOjypQjcVLCnmBW2ydKpCtKDvNtwFvUovRAdkzdvagQZMp8A==
Content-Language: en-us
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/SIJtMxbonwEMwDVPRvYs59gS7Nk>
Cc: its@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 figure comparing .11 to .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: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 11:16:02 -0000

Hello Alex, All

 

I agree with Hans-Joachim, no beacon in OCB mode..and in general, we do not
need to show ‘beacons’ in the chart, as even the association process does
not ‘need’ a beacon…it just depends on if you do ‘active’ or ‘passive’
scanning. 

 

So, if you want to avoid any misunderstanding, you can also simply remove
beacons from the drawing and mention ‘active scanning’…if you want to keep
it, then if you use a beacon, then you do not need the probes (and mention
‘passive’ scanning)..directly association (to the best of my knowledge..)

 

As for the data chart, it is also unclear..I would also tend to say that it
could be easier to have bi-directional arrows for ‘data’ in both cases.

 

Another point: this document is about IPv6..I would therefore suggest maybe
to add the IPv6 processes (so that we have IPv6 data). So, you could add the
SLAAC charts and maybe even Router Solicitation/advertisement charts. What
do you think? These would be common between WLAN and OCB…we could then just
visually show that we bypass some ‘lower layer’ phases, but IP remains
similar. This could also help us with the statement that IPv6 needs to
guarantee the security process that OCB is not doing…with such chart, that
could help.

 

Best Regards,

 

Jérôme

 

From: its [mailto:its-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Dr. Hans-Joachim
Fischer
Sent: Wednesday 01 February 2017 11:58
To: its@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 figure
comparing .11 to .11-OCB

 

 

*	Beacons are not known in OCB mode
*	Data goes bi-directional

Hans-Joachim Fischer

 

Am 01.02.2017 um 11:44 schrieb Alexandre Petrescu:

draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00  figure comparing .11 to .11-OCB 

Hello IPWAVErs, 

I suggested to illustrate the differences between .11 and .11-OCB by means
of a figure, and a co-author produced it.  Unless there is opposition I will
include it in the draft. 

   STA                    AP                 STA                    AP 
     |                      |                  |                      | 
     |<------ Beacon -------|                  |<------ Beacon -------| 
     |                      |                  |                      | 
     |---- Probe Req. ----->|                  |------- Data -------->| 
     |<--- Probe Res. ------|                  |------- Data -------->| 
     |                      |                  |------- Data -------->| 
     |---- Auth Req. ------>|                  |------- Data -------->| 
     |<--- Auth Res. -------|                  |------- Data -------->| 
     |                      |                  |------- Data -------->| 
     |---- Asso Req. ------>|                  |------- Data -------->| 
     |<--- Asso Res. -------|                  |------- Data -------->| 
     |                      |                  |------- Data -------->| 
     |------- Data -------->|                  |------- Data -------->| 
     |------- Data -------->|                  |------- Data -------->| 

     (a) Traditional IEEE 802.11               (b) IEEE 802.11 OCB mode 


Yours, 

Alex 

_______________________________________________ 
its mailing list 
its@ietf.org 
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its 





-- 
Dr. Hans-Joachim Fischer
Managing Director
 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---- 
 
         Seminars on Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems
             http://fischer-tech.eu/Feeds/CITSseminars.html
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---- 
+ + + Instaurare omnia in Christo + + +
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---- 
The information contained in this message is confidential and may be legally

privileged. This email is intended for the addressee(s). Addressees may be 
individual persons or members of mailing list. 
If you are not an addressee, you are hereby notified that any use, 
dissemination, or reproduction of this email and its optional attachements
is 
strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, please

contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original 
message. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---- 
ESF GmbH
Fichtenweg 9
89143 Blaubeuren
+49 (7344) 175340 (Direct line)
+49 (7344) 919188 (Central office)
+49 (7344) 919123 (Fax)
http://fischer-tech.eu : Main web of ESF GmbH
http://its-standards.eu : News on cooperative ITS standardization
http://its-testing.org : International consultancy for cooperative ITS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---- 
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---- 
ESF online-news:    http://fischer-tech.eu/Feeds/esf.rss
C-ITS online news:  http://its-standards.info/Feeds/cits.rss
ESF Online Nachrichten: http://fischer-tech.de/Feeds/esfD.rss
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---