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

[Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com>]

On Dec 6, 2007, at 4:24 PM, Fleischman, Eric wrote:

> The VPN requirement recommendation was for air-ground and air-air
> communications of devices or systems that have safety importance to
> aircraft.
>
> I am not aware of a security or safety reason that would require  
> VPNing
> passenger communications from aircraft. One may debatably want to  
> do it
> for non-security or non-safety reasons such as consistency or
> performance (e.g., an ATM study has tentatively concluded that  
> there are
> performance reasons to use VPN).


While some of the documents are old now, you might find some useful  
background at

http://www.multicasttech.com/mpi/

Regards
Marshall

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roland Dobbins [mailto:rdobbins@cisco.com]
> > Clearly those domains cannot interfere with one another, and clearly
> > there are mobility considerations for all of the domains that relate
> > to routing and addressing.
>
> Sure - I understand VPNning aircraft stuff (though there's no reason
> this can't work with MANET).  I don't understand VPNning
>   passenger stuff.
>
>
> --
> 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