Le 02/11/2012 20:59, Michael Richardson a écrit :
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.
In a sense yes.
But let me try to present this better.
I think you agree that, in general, one wouldn't forbid two nearby
vehicles to communicate to each other, even though infrastructure may
not be available in that area. If you differ on this aspect (like
assuming pervasive WMAN everywhere) then please let me know.
When there is no uplink (no WMAN) the negative aspect is that vehicles
can not use MIP-NEMO nor NEMO-DHCP-PD to dynamically obtain prefixes.
The positive aspect is that they can self form whatever but unique
addresses they want, or assign whatever but routed addresses among them,
without fear of disturbing infrastructure routing, and happily without
tunnels either.
Whether vehicles self-form addresses and inform each other about them,
or otherwise use a central vehicle to allocate addresses to each other,
is indeed debatable.
I think both paths should be pursued. (I mean I have a draft for each,
and there's a competitor draft for one of them, and I plan to write
another one about self-forming ULAs from VIN and there's competitor
activity on this VIN-ULA.)
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?
Yes, I wonder about this as well. I think Thierry or Jong-Hyouk are in
best position to briefly describe this.
Also, I can not find draft-jhlee-mext-mnpp. Is there a typo?
I think it is http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jhlee-mext-mnpp-00
(it may look expired but there is intention on continuing it, I believe)
Is this pointer working for you?
Alex
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative
Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
