Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petre...@gmail.com> wrote:
AP> Well yes, the prefix allocated to a vehicle when using NEMO is
AP> actually DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation RFC6276. In that RFC the
AP> presence of HA is mandatory.
AP> But some times HA may not be available, e.g. in remote areas or
AP> uncovered areas. There, one would still want vehicles to
AP> inter-communicate.
Yes, so if there is no uplink, then there is no addresses, so really,
it's not an address allocation problem, it's a routing problem.
AP> Direct communication between vehicles in the absence from
AP> infrastructure is what is being experimented in some settings,
AP> although I agree they may not be reflected in ISO works. I can
AP> speak of the EU project I work on with these V2V and V2V2I
AP> use-cases.
>> For the scenario involving the roadside and the vehicle, the
>> prefix can be exchanged as proposed by Lee
>> (draft-jhlee-mext-mnpp). The solution from Lee is being
>> integrated in the ISO TC204 standards related to ISO 21210.
AP> I am happy to learn that draft-jhlee-mext-mnpp work is
AP> integrated in ISO TC204 work.
Can you tell us how/if we can view this TC204 work?
Also, I can not find draft-jhlee-mext-mnpp. Is there a typo?
--
Michael Richardson
-on the road-
pgpbed5TcunCZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
