Hi guys,
<co-chair>
Can we please get back to talking about routing architecture, please?
</co-chair>
Thanks,
Tony
On Dec 6, 2007, at 1:24 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).
-----Original Message-----
From: Roland Dobbins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 [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
