Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-46
Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Fri, 05 July 2019 11:15 UTC
Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tsv-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1884612001E; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 04:15:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.632
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.632 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, 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 m5xpzS1aWr4r; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 04:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 503F312001B; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 04:15:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x65BFRJ3011446; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:15:27 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 9CDF0205CBA; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:15:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87C39205CA7; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:15:27 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.35.150] (is154594.intra.cea.fr [10.8.35.150]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x65BFRtF012337; Fri, 5 Jul 2019 13:15:27 +0200
To: Joerg Ott <jo@acm.org>, tsv-art@ietf.org
Cc: ietf@ietf.org, its@ietf.org, draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all@ietf.org
References: <156165351682.21357.6959207590092474225@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <37386336-7f59-7e6f-03d4-2f7994304f74@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 13:15:27 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <156165351682.21357.6959207590092474225@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tsv-art/Zm_l1_U77ztTnV5h9ALTZFB_TW8>
Subject: Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb-46
X-BeenThere: tsv-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Transport Area Review Team <tsv-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tsv-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:tsv-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tsv-art>, <mailto:tsv-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2019 11:15:35 -0000
Le 27/06/2019 à 18:38, Joerg Ott via Datatracker a écrit : [...] > App. E: why would high mobility affect encapsulation"? The paragraph in question is this: > > Appendix E. Design Considerations > > The networks defined by 802.11-OCB are in many ways similar to other > networks of the 802.11 family. In theory, the encapsulation of IPv6 > over 802.11-OCB could be very similar to the operation of IPv6 over > other networks of the 802.11 family. However, the high mobility, > strong link asymmetry and very short connection makes the 802.11-OCB > link significantly different from other 802.11 networks. Also, the > automotive applications have specific requirements for reliability, > security and privacy, which further add to the particularity of the > 802.11-OCB link. There a huge list of Design Considerations in the main matter. More and more reviews led to skinning it to just one paragraph, depicted above. Let me try to answer to the question of why would high mobility affect encapsulation. First, the word encapsulation seems to have captured your attention. I hope it is for a good reason, but frankly speaking I do not know the reason why it attracted it. To clarify, let me say that the word 'encapsulation' was used to signify 'carrying' IPv6 datagrams on 802.11-OCB. One expects IPv6 to be carried over OCB as over WiFi. ('encapsulation' was not used to mean IPv6-in-IPv6 encapsulation and friends). The high mobility in OCB is contrasted to low (or no) mobility in WiFi - it means that in WiFi users are near a fixed Access Point and dont move much. But in OCB there are no access points and cars move a lot. High mobility in OCB may need to avoid potential interference in order to ensure safety. TO achieve that, it may be possible that QoS concents become more mandatory on OCB links (than on WiFi; on WiFi the QoS concepts are almost absent in implementations). Thus, there may be a need of some mapping between IPv6 QoS-specific fields and 802.11-OCB QoS-specific fields. There may be need of other QoS-specific fields. So, whereas an IPv6-over-WiFi spec (which does not exist, btw) has no mapping of QoS fields of how IPv6 is 'carried' (encapsulated) on WiFi, an IPv6-over-OCB would need some mapping of this sort, so that IPv6 is better 'carried' over OCB. Because of mobility. QoS is just an example of why encapsulating (carrying) IPv6 on OCB may need more than just what is needed by carring IPv6 on WiFi. There are other examples: IPv6 addressing in OCB links requires human intervention often - it's not as plug and play as IPv6 over WiFi. That needs easy to remember and subnet-specific link local addresses, like fe80:1::1/32. These addresses dont exist on IPv6 altogher, let alone IPv6-over-WiFi. There are more examples. Remark my own difficulty of speculating on something which does not exist: IPv6 over WiFi specification. Alex
- [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ietf-i… Joerg Ott via Datatracker
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ie… Nabil Benamar
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ie… Joerg Ott
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ie… Suresh Krishnan
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ie… Nabil Benamar
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ie… Joerg Ott
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ie… Nabil Benamar
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ie… Joerg Ott
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ie… Nabil Benamar
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ie… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ie… Alexandre Petrescu
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ie… Nabil Benamar
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ie… Nabil Benamar
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ie… Nabil Benamar
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ie… Joerg Ott
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ie… Nabil Benamar
- Re: [Tsv-art] Tsvart last call review of draft-ie… Nabil Benamar