[RRG] Mobility in the future -- civil aviation mobility

["Fleischman, Eric" <eric.fleischman@boeing.com>]

I strongly resonate with Jari's posting. Over the past few months I have
been considering how aircraft mobility would work in an IPv6 variant of
the Aeronautical Telecommunications Network (ATN; i.e., civil aviation's
proposed air-ground and possibly air-air communications). I have become
very aware of the diverse range of opinions about the underlying
operative requirements -- differences which influence technology
preferences.

More to the point: many hypothesize direct aircraft connectivity to
ground-based entities via techniques such as NEMO, Mobile IP (MIP),
Wi-Fi, or MANET. On the other hand, the FAA's Networked LAN Security
study concluded that air-ground and air-air links (at least for
avionics) need to occur within the context of partitioned networks
(i.e., virtual private networks) for security and safety reasons. 

While considering these issues, I have formed the tentative opinion that
unanticipated requirements such as VPN-hosted communications radically
change mobility considerations. That is, if one presumes non-partitioned
communications, then NEMO, MIP, or MANET look much more attractive than
if one insists that the communications must be partitioned into VPNs. In
the latter case, I tend to think of variants of L3VPN or maybe even
L2VPN. As far as I know, the PE-CE interface of L3VPN was not designed
with mobility in mind. However, I personally don't know why it couldn't
handle mobility (e.g., for an IP in IP interface) as long as the
mobility occurred within the context of a single ISP and the mobility
rate was low enough not to deprecate the convergence of that ISP's
routing tables. 

My point being that Robin Whittle's original posting (which started this
thread) presumed MIP but MIP is by no means the only mobility
alternative. Rather, as Jari pointed out, the choice of mobility
solutions is a function of the environment's requirements and concept of
operations. And who knows, perhaps even L3VPN variants may some day
become viewed as a viable mobility solution along with the more
traditional mobility protocols?

--Eric

From: Jari Arkko [mailto:jari.arkko@piuha.net] 
>What type of mobility are you trying to solve? 
>Networks moving around? Hosts moving around? 
>The implications for what the global routing 
>system must know about the moving entities are big. 
>Also, what are the requirements for speed of updates? 
>The type of mobility that is requested in today's 
>networks goes all the way to up to the speed that 
>is capable of avoid interruptions in VoIP calls. This 
>may be possible to do in the routing system, too, but 
>the requirements are very different from merely 
>supporting, say, site multihoming.

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg