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

["Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>]

Eric,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fleischman, Eric 
> Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 10:45 AM
> To: Jari Arkko; Robin Whittle
> Cc: Routing Research Group list; Russ White
> Subject: [RRG] Mobility in the future -- civil aviation mobility
> 
> 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?

Just to add, we have also been discussing MOBIKE to manage
mobility for VPNs as an alternative for this use case.

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com
 
> --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
> 

--
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