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

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

Roland,

Please don't interpret my postings as evaluating MANET, MIP, NEMO,
MOBIKE, etc. Until our civil aviations community creates stable set of
ATN IPv6 requirements, I don't know how any viable technical analysis
can be done that could favor or preclude any mobility alternative. 

Rather, the point of my postings was to state my tentative conclusion
that requirements such as whether avionics communications must be
partitioned (VPN) or not influences the relative desirability of various
mobility alternatives. It is my perception that some of those
alternatives potentially may impact Internet scaling, depending upon how
they are designed. 

It is of course commonplace to use VPNs over MANETs (e.g., military
deployments).

I disagree with your final paragraph: VPN aggregations are definitely
still on the table within elements of our community. However, RRG may --
or may not -- choose to consider that issue as we see fit.

--Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Roland Dobbins [mailto:rdobbins@cisco.com] 
> 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).

If one is using some sort of compression scheme, maybe.  Whether any
purported benefits outweigh path agility via MANET-type ad hoc
connectivity is of course a whole other discussion.

At any rate, this group should not assume that VPN-type traffic
engineering technology is being used to aggregate the traffic to/from
large numbers of mobile nodes in transit.


--
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