Subject: Re: [its] IP-based content distribution in geo area

From: Alison Chaiken <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 00:02:58 -0700

Alexandru asks:
> In the current charter proposal (see attached), there is an area briefly
> described as "IPv6-based network-layer distribution of content in a
> geographic area."

[ .  .  . ]

> For example, advertise
> within a range of 5km that there is a traffic incident happening, and
> not beyond this 5km area.

I thought that Safety Applications were supposed to be sent via
IEEE-1609.3, the WAVE (Wireless Access in Vehicular Environment) Short
Message Protocol, which is not IP at all?    Or is that plan a North
American one?   Does E.U. plan on sending traffic safety messages over
IPV6?   Perhaps, Alexandru, you refer to traffic messages used by
navigation systems sent over IPV6 to a local area of the kind
exemplified by "The Boulevard has heavy traffic; 3rd street is
alternate", as opposed to "Vehicle in your blind spot: do not change
lanes!" which are sent by WSMP.

-- 
Alison Chaiken                           [email-masked]
650-279-5600                            http://{she-devel.com,
exerciseforthereader.org}
The intermediary between the head and the hands must be the heart.
-- Thea von Harbou

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 17:11:10 +0200

Alison,

Thank you for the reply.

Le 18/06/2013 09:02, Alison Chaiken a écrit :
> Alexandru asks:
>> In the current charter proposal (see attached), there is an area
>> briefly described as "IPv6-based network-layer distribution of
>> content in a geographic area."
>
> [ .  .  . ]
>
>> For example, advertise within a range of 5km that there is a
>> traffic incident happening, and not beyond this 5km area.
>
> IEEE-1609.3, the WAVE (Wireless Access in Vehicular Environment)
> Short Message Protocol, which is not IP at all?

I tend to agree. The document IEEE P1609.3 "Networking Services" does
use some 'WaveShortMessage' which is not IP.  I am not sure though
whether that is a header over an IP packet or just a WSM without IP
packet at all.

> Or is that plan a North American one?   Does E.U. plan on sending
> traffic safety messages over IPV6?

I dont know.  Maybe I shoudl ask whether the ETSI ITS Geonetworkign
safety messages are sent as IPv6 packets.

> Perhaps, Alexandru, you refer to traffic messages used by navigation
> systems sent over IPV6 to a local area of the kind exemplified by
> "The Boulevard has heavy traffic; 3rd street is alternate", as
> opposed to "Vehicle in your blind spot: do not change lanes!" which
> are sent by WSMP.

The example use case 1 is that of the ambulance through a traffic jam
signalling its presence within a limited area.  The 2nd is the crash
data sent by the crashing vehicles to the vehicles surrounding them in a
given range.

Alex

---

From: John Kenney <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:17:28 -0700

Hi Alexandru and Alison,

In the US we haven't tackled multi-hop DSRC yet.  For the two use cases you
mention, emergency vehicle alert and crash data, I would expect WSMP to be
a good candidate for the initial broadcast, which could be expected to
cover a few hundred meters. If dissemination beyond that were desirable, it
could use a TBD DSRC-specific multi-hop forwarding protocol like ETSI
GeoNetworking, or something else (including IP).

Also, to answer another question, WSMP is a lightweight Network & Transport
protocol, not a shim header on top of IP.

Best Regards,
John

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Alexandru Petrescu <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> ______________________________**_________________
> its mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/its<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its>
>

-- 
John Kenney
Sr. Research Manager
Toyota InfoTechnology Center, USA
465 Bernardo Avenue
Mountain View, CA 94043
Tel: 650-694-4160. Mobile: 650-224-6644

---

From: Rex Buddenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:21:20 -0700

Allison,

What is status of the IEEE 1609 set of standards?  The Google stuff I
could unearth shows activity around 2007 with a finalized standard circa
2010 (2 years is normal in IEEE).  After that, silence.  Did the
standards work crash?  Did the uptake not happen?  Or did all the troops
quit talking and start building?

What a sojourn through Google unearthed (in no particular order):
  - there do appear to be two layer 3 protocols -- IP and WSMP (WAVE
short message protocol).  As you noted.
  - the IP stack was indeed IPv6 copacetic, per briefing slides.  Since
the lower layers interface via LLC (passing payload and ethertype up
from layer 2 to 3) this didn't trip any layer modularity alarms.
  - the layer 3 protocol notes mention IP (of course) but no routing
information protocols (OSPF, OLSR, whatever).  
  - comments on multicast are germane.  The only support mechanism I saw
in the Google sweep is UDP.  I'd think reliable multicast would be an
eventual requirement, if not an immediate one.  
     Layer 3.  The slides I found mentioned 'IP' but not multicast IP.  
     Layer 4/5.  No mention of reliable protocols ... haven't discovered
NORM nor apparently the need for it.
     No mention, of course, of multicast apps, other than the use cases
Alex had.  This has been a problem in the wired internet: the
infrastructure is largely capable of routing multicast, but there's no
uptake and no apps that use it.  To get multicast right, it has to be
addressed at layers 2, 3, 4/5 and 6/7 and the industry is rather
incomplete in this regard.  
  - In what I found, the addressal of security was lacking.  This is no
surprise, but disappointing.  And what there was was targeted at
infrastructure protection, not content protection.  No end system (WSMP
emitters included) should emit data that lacks an authentication
signature.  (Use the use cases noted and consider if someone were
injecting false messages like that into the net...)

None of these are earth-shattering omissions; most can be grown into
without truckloads (sorry) of rework.

---

From: John Kenney <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:43:48 -0700

Hi Rex,

Not to preempt Alison's answer, but I'll give you my perspective as an
active member of the IEEE 1609 WG.

The status of the core 1609 standards is this:
1609.2 Security Services - published April 2013
1609.3 Networking Services (including WSMP and WAVE Service Advertisement)
- published 2010
1609.4 Multi-Channel Operation - published 2010
1609.11 Electronic Payment Data Exchange - published 2010
1609.12 Identifier Allocations - published 2012

An informative "architecture" document, IEEE 1609.0, is in ballot and will
likely be published around the end of this year.

Note that 1609.1, a trial-use version of which was published in 2006, is
not being used and will not be updated.

The uptake is happening.  These protocols (in particular the security
authentication in 1609.2 and WSMP in 1609.3) have been implemented and are
being tested in a year-long trial called Safety Pilot Model Deployment in
Ann Arbor.  http://www.umtri.umich.edu/divisionPage.php?pageID=505

Security is, thankfully, not lacking, but rather has been part of the
solution from day 1 (see 1609.2)

The WG is now considering some extensions and improvements, but the core
functionality is stable.

I hope that helps.

Best Regards,
John

-- 
John Kenney
Sr. Research Manager
Toyota InfoTechnology Center, USA
465 Bernardo Avenue
Mountain View, CA 94043
Tel: 650-694-4160. Mobile: 650-224-6644
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Rex Buddenberg <[email-masked]>wrote:

> briefly
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>

---

From: Alison Chaiken <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:49:27 -0700

Thanks John for the authoritative response!    Perhaps Hans-Joachim
Fischer or Thierry Ernst could comment on the status of 1609.x at
ETSI?    I see the logo at http://its-standards.eu/