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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --Eric > > From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
