On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Alexandru Petrescu <[email protected]> wrote: > Le 22/04/2015 18:06, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit : >> >> Hi Alex, >> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 2:55 PM, Alexandru Petrescu >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Le 16/04/2015 06:58, Jouni Korhonen a écrit : >>>> >>>> >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> The adoption call for this I-D has ended. There is a clear concensus to >>>> adopt the I-D as a working group item. >>> >>> >>> >>> I support its adoption. >>> >>> We have been working with an identifier specific to automobiles to use to >>> realize access control. Identifying an entire set of IP nodes deployed >>> in a >>> vehicle is different than identifying an end-user like address@realm. >>> >>> We looked for such an identifier and believe the VIN (Vehicle >>> Identification >>> Number) be a good candidate. >>> >>> One would consider using one type, like type 40, to encode the VIN or >>> parts >>> of it, into an MN-ID. >>> >>> The questions to the group are the following: >>> - is VIN considered private information? (in deployments it is private >>> to a certain extent, but publicly avaliable to cameras or in public >>> databases to another extent). >>> - is the MN-ID type 40 ok for it. >>> - is one type sufficient or should there be subtypes. >> >> >> What is your model here in providing Internet access to the car? >> As you may know, operators in US are deploying systems that connect >> the car to their LTE network upstream and downstream is the passengers >> in the car that access over Wi-Fi. >> With LTE, you get mobility support which is based on fixed anchoring. >> I cc'ed to Raj who works on these types of technologies. >> The ID there is the IMSI. I don't think vin is used. > > > The model of Internet access to the cars for cars currently on market in > Europe is the same - the LTE technology is used, using the IMSI as an > identifier. However, that does not use MN-ID, is only IPv4, is not WiFi and > does not resist to cellular generation upgrades to 5G and beyond.
I don't understand the handover scenario. I think you are mixing the car and the passengers in the car. LTE is available on a large geography, why should you handover the upstream traffic to Wi-Fi? Behcet > > Newer models will feature IPv6 in addition to IPv4, WiFi handover from LTE > to house's hotspot, continuous sessions, and over-the-air software update > for cheap upgradeability to future generation 5G and beyond. > > In this context it is hard to imagine IMSI will be there for a long time in > a given car, and a more permanent identifier is needed. > > To Raj - is LTE considering other kinds of identifiers for access control > (other than IMSI) for vehicular environments, like V2X? > > Alex > > > >> >> Regards, >> >> Behcet >>> >>> >>> Yours, >>> >>> Alex >>> >>> >>>> >>>> - Jouni & Dapeng >>>> >>>> 4/1/2015, 8:02 AM, Jouni Korhonen kirjoitti: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Folks, >>>>> >>>>> This emails starts a two week call for the I-D >>>>> draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01 >>>>> to confirm the aadoption s a DMM WG document. The call ends April 15th >>>>> EOB PST. >>>>> >>>>> Express your support or opposition to the mailing list. During the >>>>> IETF92 meeting we got 7 voices for the adoption so at least the same >>>>> amount supporting emails should be expected. >>>>> >>>>> - Jouni & Dapeng >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> dmm mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dmm mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
