[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] Mobility in the future -- civil aviation mobility
On Dec 6, 2007, at 10:45 AM, Fleischman, Eric wrote:
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.
I don't follow the logic. Does it make sense to do this for all
comms to/from the aircraft (so, the aircraft will encrypt/tunnel my
traffic, and then I encrypt/tunnel the traffic, on top of that?
It's off-topic for this group, but I think this is a questionable
requirement for this application and I don't know whether it will be
implemented, once folks start to understand its implications. So, as
an input for this group's considerations, I'd suggest taking this
'requirement' with a grain of salt.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@cisco.com> // 408.527.6376 voice
Culture eats strategy for breakfast.
-- Ford Motor Company
--
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