I am still not convinced. At home I have LTE. LTE can be 3G if it is somewhat degraded and 3G is also available, so no reason for inter technology handoff.
I am also concerned on some other MN ids proposed like RFid, what is the assumption there? Is it that the sensor node will have Mobile IP client? To that I say, give me a break. Behcet Behcet On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:27 AM, Alexandru Petrescu <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > > 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
