Hi Thierry, On 28.09.2011 11:05, Thierry Ernst wrote: > Car will have multiple prefixes, for different usages. The car makers
Our scenario is roughly like this: - the car has an IP-based on board network between its ECUs for internal control. This directly impacts the safety of the car in many cases. It's operation should be completely independent of any outside connectivity and addressing schemes. - outside connectivity to the Internet may be provided by several ways (built-in GSM/UMTS/LTE interfaces, smartphone thethering, WLAN hotspots etc.). The car will probably use changing addresses, may be multi-homed and may have intermittent connectivity. It may be connected to other cars, the Internet or other entities. All these external connections should be terminated at a security gateway for security reasons. > will probably allocate them an ULA (no decision made on this) for > diagnostic purposes and remote software updates. In addition, another Since ULAs are disconnected, we intend to use a tunnel for remote diagnostic access to ECUs. > prefix will be alocated to the vehicle for a number of comfort/mobility > services and traffic efficiency applications requiring Internet access, > and that, following what is current written in ITS (Intelligent > Transport Systems) standards for the vehicles (private automobiles but > also trucks, buses, etc) would be handled by a permanent and global IPv6 > prefix (allocated by car makers themselves, but more likely third > parties) and mobility support standards (NEMO [RFC3963], MCoA [RFC5648]: > see e.g. ISO TC204. At this stage, this is not yet widely supported by Permanent addresses may be problematic with respect to privacy issues. Is there a need that connections are initiated from the outside to the car? Maybe it's better to let the car initiate connections. MobileIP may be of use for providing seamless connectivity while the car is changing network access points. > the automobile industry, though, also the Car-to-Car Communication > Consortium and the Wave architecture do have IPv6 building blocks (not > completely defined). At the time being, the automobile industry is more > concerned about vehicle-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-roadside (V2R) > communications for time-critical road safety applications based on > 802.11p and not using IP. But other stakeholders like road operators and Yep. Thanks for the pointer to the slides. > So, the "next edition of the car" is on track. Any recommandation from > the IETF would be welcome but should be based on the grounds of the ITS > needs, scenarios, and their standards. Our particular focus in the SEIS project is to securely replace the existing network heterogeneity in the on-board network (CAN, MOST, Flexray, etc.) by using IP as common base. It's clear that the car will be connected to the outside in various ways, using a variety of different services. Regards, Roland -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
