Re: [ipwave] Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-networking-survey?

[Rex Buddenberg <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 2017-06-21 at 09:05 -0700, [e-mail] wrote:
> Rex,
> 
> A few more questions, if I may:
> 
> 
> > 
> > IP.  The telemetering of data to the hospital is an example of at
> > least
> > a three-segment internetwork.  Terrestrial WAN, radio-WAN and
> > LANs.  In
> > my book that makes a pretty good case for IP.  (The emergency
> > services
> > comms folks tend to view the 'backhaul', the terrestrial WAN, as an
> > afterthought.)
> 
> Those of us from the Internet infrastructure world are used to being
> an afterthought.  Except at the IETF. ;-)

The EMS community is used to VHF Land Mobile Radio with fairly high
power.  All the routable radio-WAN technologies feature much lower
power and therefore more dense networks of base stations.  The attitude
has to change.
> 
> I think that we can easily stipulate IP connectivity as a
> requirement, otherwise we wouldn’t be here, so I’m interested in more
> details.

What details?  There are about 20k jurisdictions across the US, each
with own purchasing capability.  So there are lots and lots of
details;-).  
    Probably THE characteristic is that EMS has two comms systems. The
first one is the one you and I use to call 911 to report a fire in the
house.  The second one is the above-mentioned LMR system which is
unique to EMS (and chronically obsolescent and underfunded).  There is
no particular reason for the two systems other than 'this is the way
we've always done it'.  The cry from the EMS folks has to do with QoS
which is technically bogus but emotionally potent.
> 
> > 
> > Different.  Volatile topology and security.  
> 
> We’ve dealt with volatile last-hop topology before (e.g., Wi-
> Fi).  What’s different here? 

Topology.  The radio-WAN is a router-router arrangement (WAN) rather
than router-end system (LAN).  Which means that contention MACs are
unsuitable. This is a layer 2 issue and therefore outside IETF.  

> Does your use case require multiple radio hops? 

Certainly in some cases.  One of my sounding boards was in the business
in Wyoming where this is likely.  
   The anecdote here was that Wyoming was losing more snowplow
operators to operations than they were cops.  The typical scenario
would be a big semi overtaking a snowplow on I-80 during a snowstorm.
The truck would get too close before the driver understood the
situation and would rear-end the plow.  Good on-ice observation for
some of the v-v stuff.  


> 
> On the security front, we won’t be fixing the security infrastructure
> of the entire Internet here, so there’s a limit to what we can
> do.  What do you see as the requirements that come out of your use
> case and how do existing IP security mechanisms align with or fail to
> meet those requirements?

IMHO, most of the security requirements are content security
requirements, not infrastructure ones.  And they are end-end in scope.
This means that they should be solved at layers 6/7.  Which means that
authenticity and, when needed, confidentiality, should be built into
applications.  S/MIME e-mail offers some good clues.
     The 1609 folks harp about minimum latency.  And probably with
about the best reasons.  Like the snowplow radioing out a 'virtual
siren' that the semi can receive even in lousy vis.  That message has
to be authentic but it shouldn't require a three-way handshake, meaning
TLS is unsuitable.


> Tony
> 
> 
> Help?

b
> 
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its