Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 figure comparing .11 to .11-OCB

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 02 February 2017 17:40 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@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 2A8581298AC for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 09:40:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.351
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.351 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.981, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 vFDjAV-GCeJu for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 09:40:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.145]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D34821298C4 for <its@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 09:40:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.4) with ESMTP id v12HeBPl029898; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 18:40:11 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 4724820A227; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 18:40:11 +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 60CDA20A04C; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 18:40:00 +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 v12Hdw6m021618; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 18:39:58 +0100
To: dickroy@alum.mit.edu, 'Nabil BENAMAR' <benamar73@gmail.com>, 'Jérôme Härri' <jerome.haerri@eurecom.fr>
References: <148052970170.9607.12043916621198119260.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <c5e320a9-6c3d-17bc-bbee-1994ffd3f7a4@gmail.com> <51c7f6d4-a998-bc91-1b01-3b9f06fb61fc@fischer-tech.eu> <006301d27c7c$8efefc30$acfcf490$@eurecom.fr> <4D5E38CB-828C-4E66-A671-C43893A0A884@gmail.com> <E78DA975CFA444F1AD58EE13BB3C2B85@SRA6>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <cc138c46-76f6-ae29-ab84-2f5e8b73026b@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 18:39:38 +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: <E78DA975CFA444F1AD58EE13BB3C2B85@SRA6>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------AA31AD4CF4C00BBE926D055E"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/sthRStflNbQRhk2b6bvbmzkVcNg>
Cc: "'Dr. Hans-Joachim Fischer'" <HJFischer@fischer-tech.eu>, its@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 figure comparing .11 to .11-OCB
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 17:40:21 -0000

Le 01/02/2017 à 21:03, Dick Roy a écrit :
>
> To reiterate, when using an 802.11 MAC & PHY in OCB mode, there is NO
>
> 1)Synchronization,
>

What do you mean by No Synchronisation?

BEcause a packet dump from a commercial RSU features a "IEEE 802.11 
Acknowledgement"?  Is this forbidden?

Alex

> 2)Authentication, or
>
> 3)Association
>
> performed at the MAC sublayer or lower.  There are NO beacons or 
> probes allowed in OCB mode.  That said, any chart showing the 
> difference between OCB and non-OCB mode must be independent of any 
> higher layer service being executed using either (lower layer) mode 
> and as such, addition of such irrelevant information would only be 
> confusing.  OCB mode is very simple:
>
> STA1 STA2
>
>    |←---- data --→|
>
> where data can be data, action, or mgmt frames from a restricted set 
> (e.g. no beacons or probes).
>
> RR
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Nabil BENAMAR [mailto:benamar73@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 1, 2017 7:53 AM
> *To:* Jérôme Härri
> *Cc:* Dr. Hans-Joachim Fischer; Alexandre Petrescu; its@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 figure 
> comparing .11 to .11-OCB
>
> Hi Alex, Jerome, All
>
> *//*
>
> I agree with Jerome to illustrate the SLAAC in the process of IPv6 
> configuration.
>
> It will show that there is no difference with other networks in the IP 
> layer.
>
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Nabil
>
>> On Feb 1, 2017, at 11:15 AM, Jérôme Härri <jerome.haerri@eurecom.fr 
>> <mailto:jerome.haerri@eurecom.fr>> wrote:
>>
>> Hello Alex, All
>>
>> I agree with Hans-Joachim, no beacon in OCB mode..and in general, we 
>> do not need to show ‘beacons’ in the chart, as even the association 
>> process does not ‘need’ a beacon…it just depends on if you do 
>> ‘active’ or ‘passive’ scanning.
>>
>> So, if you want to avoid any misunderstanding, you can also simply 
>> remove beacons from the drawing and mention ‘active scanning’…if you 
>> want to keep it, then if you use a beacon, then you do not need the 
>> probes (and mention ‘passive’ scanning)..directly association (to the 
>> best of my knowledge..)
>>
>> As for the data chart, it is also unclear..I would also tend to say 
>> that it could be easier to have bi-directional arrows for ‘data’ in 
>> both cases.
>>
>> Another point: this document is about IPv6..I would therefore suggest 
>> maybe to add the IPv6 processes (so that we have IPv6 data). So, you 
>> could add the SLAAC charts and maybe even Router 
>> Solicitation/advertisement charts. What do you think? These would be 
>> common between WLAN and OCB…we could then just visually show that we 
>> bypass some ‘lower layer’ phases, but IP remains similar. This could 
>> also help us with the statement that IPv6 needs to guarantee the 
>> security process that OCB is not doing…with such chart, that could help.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>> Jérôme
>>
>> *From:*its [mailto:its-bounces@ietf.org]*On Behalf Of*Dr. 
>> Hans-Joachim Fischer
>> *Sent:*Wednesday 01 February 2017 11:58
>> *To:*its@ietf.org <mailto:its@ietf.org>
>> *Subject:*Re: [ipwave] draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 figure 
>> comparing .11 to .11-OCB
>>
>>   * Beacons are not known in OCB mode
>>   * Data goes bi-directional
>>
>> Hans-Joachim Fischer
>>
>> Am 01.02.2017 um 11:44 schrieb Alexandre Petrescu:
>>
>>> draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-00 figure comparing .11 to .11-OCB
>>>
>>> Hello IPWAVErs,
>>>
>>> I suggested to illustrate the differences between .11 and .11-OCB by 
>>> means of a figure, and a co-author produced it.  Unless there is 
>>> opposition I will include it in the draft.
>>>
>>> STA AP STA AP
>>> | | | |
>>>      |<------ Beacon -------| |<------ Beacon -------|
>>> | | | |
>>>      |---- Probe Req. ----->| |------- Data -------->|
>>>      |<--- Probe Res. ------| |------- Data -------->|
>>> | | |------- Data -------->|
>>>      |---- Auth Req. ------>| |------- Data -------->|
>>>      |<--- Auth Res. -------| |------- Data -------->|
>>> | | |------- Data -------->|
>>>      |---- Asso Req. ------>| |------- Data -------->|
>>>      |<--- Asso Res. -------| |------- Data -------->|
>>> | | |------- Data -------->|
>>>      |------- Data -------->| |------- Data -------->|
>>>      |------- Data -------->| |------- Data -------->|
>>>
>>>      (a) Traditional IEEE 802.11 (b) IEEE 802.11 OCB mode
>>>
>>>
>>> Yours,
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> its mailing list
>>> its@ietf.org <mailto:its@ietf.org>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Dr. Hans-Joachim Fischer
>> Managing Director
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>
>>          Seminars on Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems
>> http://fischer-tech.eu/Feeds/CITSseminars.html
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>
>> + + + Instaurare omnia in Christo + + +
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>
>> The information contained in this message is confidential and may be 
>> legally
>> privileged. This email is intended for the addressee(s). Addressees 
>> may be
>> individual persons or members of mailing list.
>> If you are not an addressee, you are hereby notified that any use,
>> dissemination, or reproduction of this email and its optional 
>> attachements is
>> strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not an addressee, 
>> please
>> contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the 
>> original
>> message.
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>
>> ESF GmbH
>> Fichtenweg 9
>> 89143 Blaubeuren
>> +49 (7344) 175340 (Direct line)
>> +49 (7344) 919188 (Central office)
>> +49 (7344) 919123 (Fax)
>> http://fischer-tech.eu <http://fischer-tech.eu/> : Main web of ESF GmbH
>> http://its-standards.eu <http://its-standards.eu/> : News on 
>> cooperative ITS standardization
>> http://its-testing.org <http://its-testing.org/> : International 
>> consultancy for cooperative ITS
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>
>> ESF online-news: http://fischer-tech.eu/Feeds/esf.rss
>> C-ITS online news: http://its-standards.info/Feeds/cits.rss
>> ESF Online Nachrichten: http://fischer-tech.de/Feeds/esfD.rss
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> its mailing list
>> its@ietf.org <mailto:its@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>>