Thank you Victor. Quick recap of mobility networks evolution:
1. Couple of decades ago a peer to peer layer2 protocol called DSRC was specified over WiFi spectrum with basic safety messages (BSM) in which cars conveyed their GPS and kinematics sensor events like hard-brake, sharp-turn. Additional payment and information messages were specified as well. 2. For privacy considerations road-side-units (RSU) were specified as well to hand MAC keys to be used so cars will not be tracked. This double infrastructure presented a barrier so DSRC over cellular was specified CV2X. The 5G evolution is supposed to match the latency of peer to peer WiFi. 3. The peer to peer challenges however remained, the need to test every product with every other product is a barrier for extending the protocol to support on vehicle vision and sensory annotations which evolved since - such as machine vision and liadr. Also timing sequence for relaying annotations between vehicles remains a problem since both DSRC and CV2X have no memory and cars drive away. Addressable geo-states brokering solves timing, interoperability, and extendability limitations, and, edge-processing address latency needs => demonstrated in single-digit latencies in production environments, sub 5msecs in labs. From here selecting LISP as the layer3 protocol of choice the road is short and explained in the draft: o The support for logical EIDs for states based on (de-facto) geo-spatial standard grids o controlling latency and high availability by routing to states at the edge o supporting ephemeral EIDs for vehicles o signal-free-multicast for limited cast of many geo-spatial channels o the distributed connectionless scale o the multi-vendor interoperability that allows for “bring your own XTR” to protect geo-privacy o the ability to overlay multiple cellular network providers and multiple cloud-edge providers .. are some of the features which make LISP a good choice for mobility VPNs. Hope this helps. --szb Cell: +972.53.2470068 WhatsApp: +1.650.492.0794 > On Sep 19, 2019, at 7:01 AM, Victor Moreno (vimoreno) <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I think a thorough understanding of mobility requirements and dependencies > and how LISP may or may not accommodate these scenarios is key. I would like > to see us work on this and other mobility related drafts (e.g. Ground based > LISP). > > Victor > >> On Sep 18, 2019, at 11:18 AM, Dino Farinacci <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I’m a side author on this document and more of a reviewer. But I’ll answer >> your questions on behalf of a WG member. >> >>> Before I get more privacy feedback (if I do) I want to know >>> 1) does the WG actually care about this? >> >> I do. Because understanding in deep detail the use-cases, allows us to >> understand if LISP has the necessary protocol features. >> >>> 2) Is it ready for more extensive review? >> >> Yes. >> >>> I realize we have not adopted this document. Some of this feedback is to >>> help the chairs judge what to do when the authors do ask for adoption. >> >> We are at a point of the protocol’s life where working on use-cases allows >> more adoption. I am for making this a working group document (even though >> the authors have not formally requested). >> >> Dino >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lisp mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp > _______________________________________________ > lisp mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp _______________________________________________ lisp mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/lisp
