[ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 multiple interfaces

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Sun, 12 February 2017 18:50 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@cea.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 2BE141299DA for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 10:50:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.997
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.997 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 Ve_hM6nInwMB for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 10:50:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D2E61299CF for <its@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 10:50:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.4) with ESMTP id v1CIo2px029612 for <its@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 19:50:02 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 3CE1D2083F6 for <its@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 19:50:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 304B22083F5 for <its@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 19:50:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [132.166.84.15] ([132.166.84.15]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id v1CIo1wJ031436 for <its@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Feb 2017 19:50:01 +0100
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
To: "its@ietf.org" <its@ietf.org>
References: <148052970170.9607.12043916621198119260.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Organization: CEA
Message-ID: <9e3a1b98-06c9-7253-38a9-1fd50cb619fe@cea.fr>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 19:49:29 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <148052970170.9607.12043916621198119260.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms050503040201010509000309"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/lq3rWg8wTsJHrW33wMKkXGqLy4E>
Subject: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 multiple interfaces
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: Sun, 12 Feb 2017 18:50:06 -0000

draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00
multiple interfaces

José reports that IP MCoA protocol (multiple care-of addresses, RFC5648)
could be used when multiply-interfaced vehicles are used.  For that I
suggest the new text below.

(in addition, I also suggest to look at the new effort in BoF stage at
IETF called 'banana' which considers also the use of multiple
interfaces, for bandwidth augmentation. ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/banana)

old text:
> D.6. Multiple interfaces
>
[...]
> This will require specific logic to ensure, for example, that packets
> meant for a vehicle in front are actually sent by the radio in the
> front, or that multiple copies of the same packet received by
> multiple interfaces are treated as a single packet. Treating each
> wireless interface as a separate network interface pushes such issues
> to the application layer.

new text:
> This will require specific logic to ensure, for example, that packets
> meant for a vehicle in front are actually sent by the radio in the
> front, or that multiple copies of the same packet received by
> multiple interfaces are treated as a single packet. Treating each
> wireless interface as a separate network interface pushes such issues
> to the application layer.
>
> If Mobile IPv6 with NEMO extensions is used, then the MCoA RFC5648
> technology is relevant for Mobile Routers with multiple interfaces,
> deployed in vehicles.

Alex