Re: [ipwave] Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-networking-survey?
Rex Buddenberg <buddenbergr@gmail.com> Wed, 21 June 2017 16:54 UTC
Return-Path: <buddenbergr@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 C6A1A128B38 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 09:54:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 PG_lHox6YzxX for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 09:54:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pf0-x22d.google.com (mail-pf0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6280A1271DF for <its@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 09:54:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pf0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id s66so87449147pfs.1 for <its@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 09:54:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GXi3NyZcIVgmaJ1QMxX3dtWZhGrd5c8SXezeNdOy8Nk=; b=J0HihZYZ83ntyBR99BUCabNm8rSCS7wTkl2hw+kvMDOSHslJZjkOYrZ0tLkk6+Dsg9 R2zpq3gBKb8ML4iTPBNK/FUuDTZ1CqVE50mvEBQ8LJtiRThdPUnU8erL/lk0YAchhIUD 2e0GI80/CWlDPCQeuNcfFrVj3135lLi1XFNH9Xta6Cdur0twfm9/ylnE5xbYjjn0RWy9 LyhiMoi8fTljNiJvf67PrTZbwdlYNRZDed4QolQJWrmASB2suMJxUhoKiOSFozmpHVj+ qXwZWZPcrt/KSVLa6IIWhhnpEii2tRU+whtjFMXT+EQkB77QX8UfR3AuIRymtgBlEsPa Nx0g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:date:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=GXi3NyZcIVgmaJ1QMxX3dtWZhGrd5c8SXezeNdOy8Nk=; b=jObEjmczE2syum7kkORiWbBqVwakPMVfsYde3jzHwVbVCBbT4DCYhoqd2fvyqSN24n +AYF/EwDY8/k9w/MQgd3LB6PebexEqCMnd5hLP1rlSBG6kajoSvCETxKDwSkZ0BGcP7T DMb8iGHnIASgclzJAAwwj7JA5j168CZY4xrcA/q/UdEGgcA5+GFQZtfwVOGJ0k1TzCwO IUV2PwaTReAd8pwfWNjfhCwjvUU1PAdrO2s60ylM9YK0hLC8IC69ApXIRCdYyUO5NNJ5 m0MMR434KhtVxTU2yuoi6Xkob/DxA2qOed8vLKcYD0S/WBh4cB8jo3j4d26ryqVDFp7f FFHA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKS2vOwVS7AxMo/QTLljlo2fTUuz8EPQwNu4C71bhmJ7GBJ7vBjcIgEo 50oAGYxNj9e/sK7P
X-Received: by 10.98.2.151 with SMTP id 145mr36785409pfc.52.1498064039977; Wed, 21 Jun 2017 09:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain (c-71-198-163-21.hsd1.ca.comcast.net. [71.198.163.21]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m81sm32906721pfj.121.2017.06.21.09.53.58 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 21 Jun 2017 09:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1498064037.2400.192.camel@gmail.com>
From: Rex Buddenberg <buddenbergr@gmail.com>
To: tony.li@tony.li
Cc: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>, "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>, its <its@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 09:53:57 -0700
In-Reply-To: <B4B80FAD-885E-42CE-8F88-F552931C0645@tony.li>
References: <CA50A382-F591-4A33-BAF9-1903E107BE02@vigilsec.com> <1497977954.2400.149.camel@gmail.com> <CAPK2DewLqSLVvOy5TFz3JaZKKJnKBCbuzm8xUh+sdWdivSm3Tg@mail.gmail.com> <1498018725.2400.166.camel@gmail.com> <827A92DD-1EFB-4D65-A431-D1D23914D5E1@tony.li> <1498059404.2400.175.camel@gmail.com> <B4B80FAD-885E-42CE-8F88-F552931C0645@tony.li>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.18.5.2 (3.18.5.2-1.fc23)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/ldeVSs6_tzqV7NqsZtymxQdD4oo>
Subject: Re: [ipwave] Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeong-ipwave-vehicular-networking-survey?
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 21 Jun 2017 16:54:03 -0000
On Wed, 2017-06-21 at 09:05 -0700, tony.li@tony.li 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 > its@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
- [ipwave] Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeong-i… Russ Housley
- Re: [ipwave] Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeo… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [ipwave] Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeo… Nabil Benamar
- Re: [ipwave] Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeo… José Santa Lozano
- Re: [ipwave] Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeo… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [ipwave] Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeo… Dirk.von-Hugo
- Re: [ipwave] Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeo… Rex Buddenberg
- Re: [ipwave] Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeo… Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano
- Re: [ipwave] Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeo… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [ipwave] Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeo… Rex Buddenberg
- Re: [ipwave] Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeo… Chris Shen
- Re: [ipwave] Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeo… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [ipwave] Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeo… Tony Li
- Re: [ipwave] Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeo… Rex Buddenberg
- Re: [ipwave] Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeo… tony.li
- Re: [ipwave] Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeo… Rex Buddenberg
- Re: [ipwave] Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeo… Russ Housley
- Re: [ipwave] Should the IPWAVE WG adopt draft-jeo… Abdussalam Baryun