Hello Alex, On Nov 3, 2012, at 17:53 , Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petre...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
Sorry to jump into the discussion. In the case there is no uplink connectivity, I would tend to say that vehicles would use the prefix that had been assigned to them previously (when infrastructure was available and they had connectivity to run NEMO/DHCPv6-PD). Or do you consider that the LV would never have the capability to connect to the infrastructure? Thank you, Romain > 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
