Hi Alex, > -----Original Message----- > From: dmm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu > Sent: Friday, April 24, 2015 1:27 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected]; Basavaraj Patil; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DMM] Call for adoption: draft-perkins-dmm-4283mnids-01 > > Le 23/04/2015 19:11, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit : > > 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? > > When the car arrives home it connects to the WiFi available in home, > thus handing over from LTE. This is a sold use-case at e.g. Tesla. The > WiFi hotspot can be the one deployed in-house, in-garage, or the WiFi > offered by the electrical recharging stations.
In the aviation domain, the term "gatelink" is often used to describe this kind of WiFi handover. Thanks - Fred [email protected] > Other manufacturers propose scenarios in which car's WiFi antenna > switches from being an in-car hotspot to being a Client to outside wifi. > > Some consider 802.11p (wifi for vehicles) to be deployed along highways > and cars to perform handovers between these 802.11p access points. > > Next time on highway scan for WiFi - one is surprised by the number of > hotspots driving around, even though often they use portals. > > There are many commercially considered scenarios involving WiFi > handovers for cars. > > Alex > > > > > 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 _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
