Re: [its] Comments for a New Draft of Problem Statement for V2I Networking
Nabil Benamar <benamar73@gmail.com> Sat, 02 April 2016 20:04 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 D1ED012D588 for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Apr 2016 13:04:55 -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 1nC6x54Ox2mF for <its@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 2 Apr 2016 13:04:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lf0-x233.google.com (mail-lf0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::233]) (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 50CA212D55A for <its@ietf.org>; Sat, 2 Apr 2016 13:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lf0-x233.google.com with SMTP id k79so116360533lfb.2 for <its@ietf.org>; Sat, 02 Apr 2016 13:04:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=kURUoBDboXCssdzzLqd/dToYMYMLFr8uNEj4ibZZhCQ=; b=QjB6vVqrToGyHvezLeow7F4iC3TLLh99P8Zj2WFRSp67usVhF9iq/J31SMsP4nUGas adm39Dg9wUfa+SheIDJW5s9tnvcMtxf1nSvKLT0dA/0we6mlbl28Rnj8MC4+ncCoJnEj 0NY/M4ADNKYd9UFuulctKXxTGIVF4y2bI2yottPuNzw7ya1Fhw+Viss3WN3ru7uwLUQ/ k3KKHgyr5ZghU/C44SohlmAeyGDJ1aNL67cTNllGF+sKT6hX3AYGNa0s7IiM5xeGtlTX MzZkEAlOmdj1RA/3DYY0Y1Uw5xTBoqg4Lg9Qmy7eZxywKBxztvA9PM5R7KNlKPjvvCxu 7dJQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc; bh=kURUoBDboXCssdzzLqd/dToYMYMLFr8uNEj4ibZZhCQ=; b=dhB9Ityw2P5+1LWRYRIOb0pCxh6FcmM306Lwti2jiYiIm9SSGzc9/avcr2buYnYW7B sfVXyWMJfk+E9dQpfxraGGBNgSiMZYPPDnoL+ZM5EG1sAVZoQCAX4yG+vrr10RXQ2CZz zILfemjQ0CLW1w5imT2dcn8tAt1u6e9r/nJAQFYcE3H9hU5JaDEle/+gxWK9qWdAqPYh n4kPQ+cTTrg/usZMUhyi983AnBfPKKsT8G/A8AuBZiYgmxYdxELaNHWimUEqeqeDDpNx bje7hXTwQqTTidI5W8dUfvVM6A7hA7iPhktJmxkD8mLHcpe6nxVc7A7qi3XkcAKhJ4Xm 8JIQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJJ68tIzpxc/A8iyYR/jAnYtD9k7cW/0I5+sHJetirl5/tsZXQyLfcy5E4u+smdruGC3158Fej4FE82bLQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.82.66 with SMTP id g2mr15015104wjy.161.1459627490255; Sat, 02 Apr 2016 13:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.28.224.137 with HTTP; Sat, 2 Apr 2016 13:04:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPK2Dew1x0mVkNV6YnoNy77YozegBg7f6AKKuQw+4qRXbPoVQQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPK2Dex2h5RjgTP8s6eDcH9PtjeoLMKAbmpEA3wu_1fZStm24g@mail.gmail.com> <56C465DB.8060305@gmail.com> <AD88D4CE415746D68918F8390F672A4A@SRA4> <CAPK2Dew1x0mVkNV6YnoNy77YozegBg7f6AKKuQw+4qRXbPoVQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 02 Apr 2016 17:04:50 -0300
Message-ID: <CAMugd_WcByz4GJhHdDHvYhUqqWVaFX8cgit4+StG_o9pX7kvWw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nabil Benamar <benamar73@gmail.com>
To: "Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong" <jaehoon.paul@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7bf0c5600faca7052f8602df"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/its/vRNbbczOVAr-EZ2UN_QFzOe3CEk>
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>, 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: Sat, 02 Apr 2016 20:04:56 -0000
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.* *“ … 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.* *“….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. * *“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 ?* *“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.* *“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.* *“DHCPv6 (or Stateless DHCPv6) can 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.* 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 > >
- [its] Request for Comments for a New Draft of Pro… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [its] Comments for a New Draft of Problem Sta… Alexandre Petrescu
- [its] Fwd: RE: Comments for a New Draft of Proble… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [its] Comments for a New Draft of Problem Sta… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [its] Comments for a New Draft of Problem Sta… Mr. Jaehoon Paul Jeong
- Re: [its] Comments for a New Draft of Problem Sta… Jérôme Härri
- 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