Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 handover considerations at 802.11-OCB and 1609

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Dick,

Le 04/02/2017 à 09:51, Dick Roy a écrit :
> Now you are getting to the real heart of the ITS WI in the IETF!
> 1609/802.11 OCB was and is simply a single link protocol set.  There
> are NO networks, no networking, no nothing.  IPv6 was recognized in
> the 1609 standards (and ISO standards) as the "preferred" networking
> technology should there be a need for such (which there obviously
> is!).  While 802.11 has developed and is developing functionality
> that makes seemless handover between APs a bit easier (.11ai and
> friends), the how it is accomplished in the "network" is out of scope
> for both 802 and 1609.  You will not get either group to develop
> mobility management protocols anytime soon (read: before we all pass
> away:^)  Furthermore, there is NO chance of deploying a wide area
> bridged network consisting solely of 5.9GHz RSUs.  Some networking
> functionality will be mandatory in any deployments.  Enter IPv6!
> IPv6 mobility management (handover, session continuity, etc.) for
> rapidly changing network topologies is EXACTLY what we (those of us
> doing all the other ITS comm stuff:^)) "hired you guys at the IETF"
> to do for us!

I can agree that IEEE would not do IP handover work.

Handovers are of two types: MAC handovers and IP handovers.  The IP
handovers are designed at IETF, e.g. the Mobile IP protocol.

The IP handovers would be specified in a separate document, because the
IP-over-foo RFCs dont describe handovers.

Alex

>
> Cheers,
>
> RR
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Alexandre Petrescu
> [mailto:[e-mail]] Sent: Thursday, February 2,
> 2017 9:39 AM To: [e-mail] Subject: [ipwave]
> draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 handover considerations at
> 802.11-OCB and 1609
>
> draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 handover considerations at
> 802.11-OCB and 1609
>
> Hello IPWAVErs,
>
> There has been a comment that handovers were never seriously
> addressed in 802.11p or IEEE 1609.
>
> As such, I suggest two things.
>
> One is I adapt the text like this:
>
> old:
>> However, there are several deployment considerations to optimize
>> the performances of running IPv6 over 802.11p (e.g. in the case of
>> handovers between 802.11p Access Points, or the consideration of
>> using the IP security layer).
>
> new:
>> However, there may be some deployment considerations helping
>> optimize the performances of running IPv6 over 802.11-OCB (e.g. in
>> the case of handovers between 802.11-OCB [term], or the
>> consideration of using the IP security layer).
>
> The other is that I suggest IEEE 802.11-OCB and IEEE P1609 to
> address seriously the handover considerations.  At IETF there are a
> few RFCs and running code that describe how IP handovers happen.
>
> Yours,
>
> Alex
>
>
>