On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:59 PM, Templin, Fred L <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com> wrote:
> Hi Chris, > > > > Thanks for the comments, but no the planes (as Clients) do not do BGP; > > only the ground-domain Servers and Relays do BGP. > > > > Servers are ASBRs for stub ASes and connect to Relays that are ASBRs for > > a core AS in a hub-and-spokes fashion. When a plane contacts a Server, > > it becomes part of that Server’s stub AS. And, because planes do not > > move rapidly from Server to Server, the amount of mobility-related BGP > > update churn as seen by the core AS is dampened. > > > > But, the planes themselves do not participate in BGP, and are therefore > > not mobile ASes. > yup, sure what I was proposing is that they DO participate. I could see a world where the plane has a simple BGP instance, and some orchestration does the equivalent of the mobile cell hand-off for hand-devices: "about to leave AS1, start peering with AS2, ... drop peering with AS1" I imagine each plane could even maintain more than one live BGP session with the ground stations, even. It's good to hear that the expected churn is low, that makes 'plane based bgp' even more attractive (to me anyway). Again this still sounds like /2547 mpls vpn/ sorts of stuff, not something super related to grow's 'global routing (internet focused) operations' area, is it? in a 2547 sort of scenario (any of the vpn overlays really) the carrier network doesn't have to know anything at all about the vpn content or routes. > > > Thanks - Fred > > > > *From:* Christopher Morrow [mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Monday, March 12, 2018 12:31 PM > *To:* Templin, Fred L <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com> > *Cc:* grow@ietf.org; Saccone, Gregory T <gregory.t.sacc...@boeing.com>; > Gaurav Dawra <gdawra.i...@gmail.com> > *Subject:* Re: [GROW] A Simple BGP-based Mobile Routing System for the > Aeronautical Telecommunications Network > > > > (as a normal participant) > > > > On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Templin, Fred L <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com> > wrote: > > Hello, > > We have published a document that proposes BGP as the core of a mobile > routing > service for worldwide civil aviation in the Aeronautical > Telecommunications Network > with Internet Protocol Services (ATN/IPS). This would be an overlay > network deployment > of standard BGP with ASes arranged in such a way as to mitigate the > mobility-related > instability that was inherent in past approaches. The system also > leverages an > adjunct route optimization service known as AERO. > > The ATN/IPS is planned to eventually replace existing air traffic > management services > with an IPv6-based service as part of a long-term evolution. The choice of > mobile > routing services is being made now, with this approach, LISP and Mobile > IPv6 as > candidates. Although the decision is being considered in the International > Civil > Aviation Organization (ICAO), we feel the time is right to socialize the > effort > in the IETF. > > > > Hey, much of this document reads like: > "hey, the global internet is messy, and slowish, we think making our > own bgp domain will make that problem go away" > > > > Followed by what smells a lot like any old RFC2547 MPLS VPN deployment. > I'm not sure I buy the need for 'ip mobility' in a world where the plane > COULD be a BGP speaker and just negotiate upstream connectivity 'in real > time'... but overall this just sounds like any other 2547 deployment to me? > > You'd have to convince your constituent parts that depending upon various > providers 2547 interconnection agreements to work out properly is > sane/useful/cost-effective/not-prone-to-explosion... but ... sure, make a > 2547 network, make the planes do bgp, and orchestrate the add/remove > peerings part across the network as planes move around. >
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
