Re: [ipwave] Some review comments for draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-11

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 16/09/2019 à 06:08, Charlie Perkins a écrit :
[...]

> In section 5.1.4, it was not clear to me about why Neighbor Discovery 
> really needs to be extended into being a routing protocol.

I do not know what particular aspect is little clear about why ND really
needs to be extended into being a routing protocol?

On my side, I can try to clarify, as I support ND for vehicular networks
encompassing multiple subnets.

A routing protocol is something very heavy, designed to adapt to very
many dynamic graphs.  For example, I think of the number of subnets in a
Enterprise, coupled to several ISPs simultaneously and with branches
overseas, and some cellular network subscriptions.

On another hand, in vehicular lines like convoys, or in car-to-traffic
lights situations, or even in 2-dimensional car plus drones and air taxi
situations, the IP paths are much simpler than in the above cited
dynamic graphs.

For these situations one would need simpler protocols, like ND.  But ND
has only very primitive forms of routing.

Alex

> 
> --------------------------------------------
> 
> It seems to me that section 5.3 really belongs in section 6. Also, even 
> a perfectly authorized and legitimate vehicle might be persuaded somehow 
> to run malicious applications.  I think that this point is not 
> sufficiently covered in the current text.
> 
> Regards,
> Charlie P.
> Blue Sky Networks
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its