Re: [its] Comments for a New Draft of Problem Statement for V2I Networking
Nabil Benamar <benamar73@gmail.com> Tue, 05 April 2016 11:28 UTC
Return-Path: <benamar73@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 6C38112D1E8 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 04:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 nqkGeDkTrhHy for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 04:28:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22d.google.com (mail-wm0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::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 4388712D1B6 for <its@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 04:28:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id 191so21115791wmq.0 for <its@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Apr 2016 04:28:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=lQdaSe34V7wBOHK3auHAo9ltROzmiBiagcPJK3Bw6Do=; b=rtwMemPUmSvbB1YIoGCHuys4ewGCxlm9qmGRNrGa6EaS5J62FDgn+M1hWsg5JV+xPK Uuj6OxyDbqx/hekmsljbrvFc+LZ/kT6BpEDfQiB5ZTJwWNUyIKfPpJ5B4oVfs35bb4eF /5AufiU4XXjiZggrVRSh5RxSN+evEjrQrq/SoWvVSv2fpWO/8aZGC+1xpndxbmx5FL82 Axt2naQgwMVcQL4+i0YSJo4u7ImpSsUnoxhbIyHUfTdfgW9CY/uKZ49fN/30vyVRV4ut wviGALGfmJntf4b9VWgYUD6u6yo00/U4ZRTTnfryvYMjLsNAUq8HviAkeu+GA+N5X56d rBiA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=lQdaSe34V7wBOHK3auHAo9ltROzmiBiagcPJK3Bw6Do=; b=U6fGw5NU97vRMY0SGBO07vkMEY5Q3od+xZdrHpTLKXkwxNegGjYnvcmLGi2pJ0NrqM MoEsYvHkX8fvV6p1DD6PIpwlgr86Y+cRIq31N4JNP2UToZ4jcfEk1Ar8RPddyQBWtMdJ 4LIBpBSqCPpM60V/5tY+puyyj4ORaUsXAg8cgY8pswP9JCUx33ec+HaHah40bGBvYVuW q5noPvjsxyDS8l8OcV3XQjtj5cBlNIvxn0YR36olPRFe/5K19oZzPPyiwnPhegkGJkBz PYdKwfXnuYh9Qk/rPgW0r/PTAYfjaCob8jmQrjQbzX4NkHLbp07AhIk4hQyQWfARLq3h TVEQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJIvQ4iFnq4fXJukd+hK3+3FZeXIqBoEgLNNHravmVII5CxcdShXNTy7Qt81Eukqhsbnby2PC1KMTRaVrQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.28.211.130 with SMTP id k124mr17660503wmg.7.1459855685712; Tue, 05 Apr 2016 04:28:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.224.137 with HTTP; Tue, 5 Apr 2016 04:28:05 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 08:28:05 -0300
Message-ID: <CAMugd_X28U8k9QSkYV=aTThbnkQOXjg3XgHij8tyNJzWbFyfrg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nabil Benamar <benamar73@gmail.com>
To: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1146998e92027b052fbb23da"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/uR7qsBxoS_DYtVB962nIjtLixmU>
Cc: Thierry Ernst <thierry.ernst@yogoko.fr>, "its@ietf.org" <its@ietf.org>, knut.evensen@q-free.com, "Dr. Hans-Joachim Fischer" <HJFischer@fischer-tech.eu>, Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, Richard Roy <dickroy@alum.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: [its] Comments for a New Draft of Problem Statement for V2I Networking
X-BeenThere: its@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: ITS at IETF discussion list <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: Tue, 05 Apr 2016 11:28:11 -0000
Hi Jaehoon, Best regards Nabil Benamar ------------------- نبيل بنعمرو http://nabilbenamar.ipv6-lab.net/ On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Nabil, > Thanks for your good comments. > > I answers your questions and comments in lines with "=>" below. > > On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Nabil Benamar <benamar73@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Jaehoon, >> >> Here are some comments: >> >> *Introduction* >> >> >> * “ Recently,…..” This is not recent since the works on VANETs and its >> use cases have been done for a while … such as driving safety, efficient >> driving, and entertainment! There are a lot of journal papers tackling in >> details this topic.* >> >> *This section can be modified as follows: * >> >> *Vehicular Networks have become a popular topic during the last years due >> to the important applications that can be realized in such environment.* >> > *=> Will be reflected on the revision.* >> >> *“ … with a consideration of the vehicular network's characteristics such >> as a vehicle's velocity and collision avoidance.” * >> > *Collision avoidance is a consequence and a goal to attend and not a >> characteristic of this IEEE standard.* >> >> *=> You are right. I will update it as follows: “... with a consideration >> of the vehicular network's characteristics such as a vehicle's velocity and >> its directed movement along a roadway.”* >> >> >> > *“….IPv6 [RFC2460] is suitable for vehicular networks since the protocol >> has* >> >> * abundant address space, autoconfiguration features, and protocol >> extension ability through extension headers.”* >> >> >> *Better to mention the draft >> ‘https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-petrescu-ipv6-over-80211p-03 >> <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-petrescu-ipv6-over-80211p-03>’ as a >> supporting reference here.* >> > *=> Will be reflected on the revision.* >> >> >> > *“it is assumed that the prefix assignment for each subnet inside* >> >> * the vehicle's mobile network and the RSU's infra-node network through* >> >> * a prefix delegation protocol.”* >> >> >> *Prefex delegation is only possible through DHCPv6-PD, is this what you >> mean ? * >> > > > *=> Yes, DHCPv6-PD can be used as a solution. We may invent another one > for vehicular networks.** Also, prefix configuration can be manually > done at the manufacturing time as factory default.* > >> >> *“Also, the DNS naming service should be supported for the* >> >> * DNS name resolution for a host or server in either the vehicle's* >> >> * mobile network or the RSU's infra-node network.”* >> >> >> *So what could be the issue here ? Is DNS an issue? DNS information are >> included in RA with the flag “O” enabled. * >> > *=> We need to consider three issues, such as IPv6 host DNS configuration, >> DNS name resolution, and DNS name autoconfiguration. * >> > *The first is IPv6 host DNS configuration for Recursive DNS Server (RDNSS) >> and DNS Search List (DNSSL) t**hrough RA Options (RFC 6106) and DHCP >> Options (RFC 3646).* >> >> *The second is DNS name resolution through an appropriate RDNSS w**ithin >> a vehicle’s moving network or an RSU’s fixed network. * >> >> *The third is DNS name autoconfiguration of vehicle and in-vehicle >> devices t**hrough DNSNA (draft-jeong-its-iot-dns-autoconf-00), mDNS (RFC >> 6762), and DNS Update (RFC 2136).* >> >> >> *“The former approach is* >> >> * usually used by Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANET) for a separate multi-* >> >> * link subnet.”* >> >> >> *Site local addressing is deprecated RFC 3879…so no need to mention it in >> the current draft. * >> > *=> Yes, Site-local addressing will be replaced by Unique Local IPv6 >> Addresses (ULA) in RFC 4193.* >> > Indeed, site local have already been replaced by ULAs > >> *“DHCPv6 (or Stateless DHCPv6) can be used for the IP address* >> >> * autoconfiguration [RFC3315][RFC3736] “ * >> > *=> **As an alternative protocol, DHCPv6 (or Stateless DHCPv6) can also >> be used for the IP address **autoconfiguration [RFC3315][RFC3736].* >> >> *There is no more autoconfiguration when we use DHCPv6…So this sentence >> should be corrected accordingly. * >> > *=> What do you mean by "**There is no more autoconfiguration when we use >> DHCPv6**"?* >> > I mean that when you use DHCPv6 that means that your DHCP sever will send all the configuration details needed (IPv6@ + prefix length +gw + @DNS) if the M flag is enabled, which means that there is no "auto" configuration! So the term "auto" in this case should be removed. > *I intend that DHCPv6 can be used for an IPv6 host's address >> autoconfiguration instead of RA. * >> > *Thanks. * >> > *Best Regards,* >> > *Paul* >> > > >> Best regards >> Nabil Benamar >> ------------------- >> نبيل بنعمرو >> >> http://nabilbenamar.ipv6-lab.net/ >> >> On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong < >> jaehoon.paul@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Richard, >>> I will check the IOS standards related to ITS, which are pointed by you. >>> >>> I agree with you that you need to use well-known terminology for our ITS >>> work. >>> >>> For 802.11p, as I know, both industry and academia are considering it as >>> Dedicated Short-Range Communications (DSRC) for vehicular networking. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Paul >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2016 at 6:24 AM, Richard Roy <dickroy@alum.mit.edu> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Alex/Paul, >>>> >>>> I suspect much of what you are thinking needs standardization below has >>>> already been standardized. You might want to check out ISO 21217 (ITS >>>> station/communication architecture), followed by ISO 21210 (IPv6 >>>> networking >>>> for ITS). If nothing else, we already have terms for all of the >>>> configurations you describe below (see ISO 21217). It would be best to >>>> stick with this now well-known terminology. >>>> >>>> By the way, none of this depends on 802.11 5.9GHz in the data link and >>>> physical layers. I continue to wonder why 802.11p ever comes up. It >>>> could >>>> just as well be 5.4GHz BRAN, 2.4GHz ISM, IR, tin can and a string, or >>>> whatever ... >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> RR >>>> >>>> > -----Original Message----- >>>> > From: Alexandre Petrescu [mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com] >>>> > Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 4:22 AM >>>> > To: Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong >>>> > Cc: its@ietf.org >>>> > Subject: Re: [its] Comments for a New Draft of Problem Statement for >>>> V2I >>>> > Networking >>>> > >>>> > Hello Paul, >>>> > >>>> > Thanks a lot for this draft. This V2I problem statement covers many >>>> > things we have discussed in Yokohama. >>>> > >>>> > What do the others think about this draft? >>>> > >>>> > I hame some comments, see below. >>>> > >>>> > Le 15/02/2016 17:30, Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong a écrit : >>>> > > Hi ITS Colleagues, >>>> > > >>>> > > Title: Problem Statement for Vehicle-to-Infrastructure Networking >>>> > > I-D: draft-jeong-its-v2i-problem-statement-00 Link: >>>> > > >>>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jeong-its-v2i-problem-statement-00 >>>> > > >>>> > > Abstract This document specifies the problem statement for >>>> > > IPv6-based vehicle- to-infrastructure networking. Dedicated >>>> > > Short-Range Communications (DSRC) is standardized as IEEE 802.11p >>>> for >>>> > > the wireless media access in vehicular networks. This document >>>> > > addresses the extension of IPv6 as the network layer protocol in >>>> > > vehicular networks and is focused on the networking issues in >>>> > > one-hop communication between a Road-Side Unit (RSU) and vehicle. >>>> > > The RSU is connected to the Internet and allows vehicles to have the >>>> > > Internet access if connected. The major issues of including IPv6 in >>>> > > vehicular networks are neighbor discovery protocol, stateless >>>> > > address autoconfiguration, and DNS configuration for the Internet >>>> > > connectivity over DSRC. Also, when the vehicle and the RSU have an >>>> > > internal network, respectively, the document discusses the issues of >>>> > > internetworking between the vehicle's internal network and the RSU's >>>> > > internal network. >>>> > > >>>> > > If you have comments or questions, please let me know. >>>> > >>>> > You can use the documentation prefixes 2001:db8:1000::/63 (instead of >>>> > real addresses like 2001:1000::/63). >>>> > >>>> > The term "RSU infra-node network" is something new and may need to be >>>> > present in the definitions section. >>>> > >>>> > If I understand you correctly, the RSU infra-node network is a network >>>> > of IP-addressable devices which are present in the Road-Side Unit - >>>> right? >>>> > >>>> > I am asking because I know some such RSUs on the market which contain >>>> > several IP-addressable devices linked together, but we dont have a >>>> name >>>> > for them. The "RSU infra-node network" sounds good, I think. >>>> > >>>> > For the term "mobile network" - we can rather use maybe >>>> > "moving network". >>>> > >>>> > In section 5 "Internetworking between the Vehicle and RSU networks": >>>> > > Problems are a prefix discovery and prefix exchange. The prefix >>>> > > discovery is defined as how routers in a mobile network discover >>>> > > prefixes in the mobile network. The prefix exchange is defined as >>>> > > how the vehicle and the RSU exchange their prefixes with each other. >>>> > >>>> > I agree with the problem of prefix exchange. >>>> > >>>> > For the "prefix discovery", I have some doubts. >>>> > >>>> > First, the routers inside the moving network can be pre-configured >>>> with >>>> > the prefixes inside that moving network. If so, then there can be no >>>> > need for these routers to discover the prefixes inside the same moving >>>> > network. But, of course, if they are not preconfigured then they have >>>> > to be discovered somehow. >>>> > >>>> > Second, there is a need for one router (the mobile router?) in the >>>> > moving network to discover several parameters of a nearby moving >>>> > network, and also the parameters of a "RSU infra-node network". These >>>> > parameters, including the IP prefix of the other network, are listed >>>> in >>>> > draft-petrescu-its-problem-01 section 3.1 "Discovery Sub-Problem". It >>>> > would be good to use same terminology for this discovery. >>>> > >>>> > > This section discusses IP addressing for V2I networking. There are >>>> > > two policies for IPv6 addressing in vehicular networks. The one >>>> > > policy is to use site-local IPv6 addresses for vehicular networks >>>> > > [RFC4291]. >>>> > >>>> > Since the site-local IPv6 addresses (fec0::) have been deprecated, it >>>> > would be appropriate to mention "Unique Local Addresses" (ULAs) which >>>> > can somehow play the role that seems to be needed here. I suggest to >>>> > substitute ULA for site-local addresses. >>>> > >>>> > > The former approach is >>>> > > usually used by Mobile Ad Hoc Networks (MANET) for a separate >>>> multi- >>>> > > link subnet. >>>> > >>>> > MANET has a certain meaning at IETF: it's the WG MANET. I dont think >>>> > there is any MANET draft that recommends ULAs (but maybe they >>>> recommend >>>> > site-locals?). Maybe ask the MANET WG what is the MANET IP Addressing >>>> > Architecture (do they use ULAs? do they use GUA - globals?). If yes >>>> > then refer to MANET WG document here. >>>> > >>>> > > Sections 7 ND, 8 address autoconf, 9 DNS >>>> > >>>> > I agree with these sections 7, 8 and 9. >>>> > >>>> > > 10. IP Mobility Support >>>> > > >>>> > > This section discusses an IP mobility support in V2I >>>> networking. In >>>> > > a single subnet per RSU, vehicles keep crossing the communication >>>> > > coverages of adjacent RSUs. During this crossing, TCP/UDP >>>> sessions >>>> > > can be maintained through IP mobility support, such as Mobile >>>> IPv6 >>>> > > [RFC6275]. Since vehicles move fast along roadways, this high >>>> speed >>>> > > should be configured for a parameter configuration in Mobile >>>> IPv6. >>>> > > >>>> > > To support the mobility of a vehicle's mobile network, Network >>>> > > Mobility (NEMO) protocol can be used [RFC3963]. Like Mobile >>>> IPv6, >>>> > > the high speed of vehicles should be considered for a parameter >>>> > > configuration in NEMO. >>>> > >>>> > I agree. >>>> > >>>> > I would like to add the following: >>>> > >>>> > 1. When Mobile IPv6/NEMO is used by the Mobile Router connected to >>>> > the RSU infra-node a tunnel is established between the MR and its >>>> > Home Agent in the TCC (Traffic Control Center). If a node inside >>>> > the moving network (not the MR) needs to exchange data with a node >>>> > within the RSU infra-node network then that communication must >>>> > go through the Home Agent. The delays on the path to the HA may >>>> be >>>> > too high for the reactivity needed between a vehicle and an RSU, >>>> or >>>> > the path can even be blocked. For this reason it is necessary to >>>> > accommodate direct communications (skip the HA) between a node in >>>> > the moving network and a node in the RSU infra-node network. This >>>> > can be achieved only if the two networks learn each other's >>>> prefixes. >>>> > >>>> > 2. A new method of connecting the moving network directly to the RSU >>>> > infra-node network may lead to modifying the addressing >>>> architecture >>>> > in the moving network. This can become a problem to the use of >>>> > Mobile IP, because Mobile IP relies on the addressing architecture >>>> > controlled by the Home Agent. This problem should be solved as >>>> well. >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > In section 11 Security Considerations: >>>> > > 11. Security Considerations >>>> > > >>>> > > The security is very important in vehicular networks for V2I >>>> > > networking. Only valid vehicles should be allowed to use V2I >>>> > > networking in vehicular networks. VIN and a user certificate >>>> can be >>>> > > used to authenticate a vehicle and the user. >>>> > > >>>> > > This document shares all the security issues of the neighbor >>>> > > discovery protocol. This document can get benefits from secure >>>> > > neighbor discovery (SEND) [RFC3971] >>>> > >>>> > Recent works in security for vehicular networks mention two additional >>>> > things that are worth considering: >>>> > >>>> > 1. the use of TLS certificates for vehicle communications >>>> > draft-lonc-tls-certieee1609-01 >>>> > >>>> > 2. privacy considerations: a new ETSI activity may consider privacy >>>> > aspects of identifier generation in vehicular communications. >>>> > >>>> > It is worth referring to these aspects (give references). >>>> > >>>> > Yours, >>>> > >>>> > Alex >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > > >>>> > > Thanks. >>>> > > >>>> > > Best Regards, Paul -- =========================== Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) >>>> > > Jeong, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Department of Software Sungkyunkwan >>>> > > University Office: +82-31-299-4957 Email: jaehoon.paul@gmail.com >>>> > > <mailto:jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>, pauljeong@skku.edu >>>> > > <mailto:pauljeong@skku.edu> Personal Homepage: >>>> > > http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php >>>> > > <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php> >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > _______________________________________________ its mailing list >>>> > > its@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> =========================== >>> Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D. >>> Assistant Professor >>> Department of Software >>> Sungkyunkwan University >>> Office: +82-31-299-4957 >>> Email: jaehoon.paul@gmail.com, pauljeong@skku.edu >>> Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php >>> <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> its mailing list >>> its@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its >>> >>> >> > > > -- > =========================== > Mr. Jaehoon (Paul) Jeong, Ph.D. > Assistant Professor > Department of Software > Sungkyunkwan University > Office: +82-31-299-4957 > Email: jaehoon.paul@gmail.com, pauljeong@skku.edu > Personal Homepage: http://iotlab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php > <http://cpslab.skku.edu/people-jaehoon-jeong.php> >
- Re: [its] Comments for a New Draft of Problem Sta… Nabil Benamar
- Re: [its] Comments for a New Draft of Problem Sta… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong