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

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 02 February 2017 17:38 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 EED4D1298C2 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 09:38:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.215
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.215 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] 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 d46xs9pO7XwY for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 09:38:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6CC0E1298AC for <its@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 09:38:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.4) with ESMTP id v12Hcq9v017376 for <its@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 18:38:52 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 220AD20A232 for <its@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 18:38:52 +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 175B120A04C for <its@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 18:38:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [132.166.84.79] ([132.166.84.79]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id v12HcpJg021204 for <its@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 18:38:51 +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: <4dfb57e1-64fa-8798-2507-ae979cbfc8c9@cea.fr>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 18:38:31 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
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="------------ms090301000503040008080509"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/slDcWfi1PwMqHTdbRikSilLjsu8>
Subject: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 handover considerations at 802.11-OCB and 1609
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: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 17:38:56 -0000

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