Re: [GROW] A Simple BGP-based Mobile Routing System for the Aeronautical Telecommunications Network

[Acee Lindem (acee)]

Hi Chris,

While the ATN in not THE Global Routing system, it is A Global Routing system 
that, at least in this proposal, is based on BGP. Hence, I think the GROW 
community is an excellent place for review. I would not liken it to RFC 4364 
VPNs though since the overlay network is not tightly coupled to the underlay 
network and, in the current proposal, both the underlay and overlay are using 
the global VRF. The overlay routes simply resolve their nexthops over the 
underlay routes which will, in many cases, also be BGP routes. A better analogy 
than RFC 4364 are commercial SD-WAN implementations which avail tunnels over 
multiple networks including the Internet.

Thanks,
Acee

From: "Templin, Fred L" 
Date: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 11:56 AM
To: Christopher Morrow 
Cc: "grow@ietf.org" , "Saccone, Gregory T" 
, Gaurav Dawra , Acee 
Lindem 
Subject: RE: [GROW] A Simple BGP-based Mobile Routing System for the 
Aeronautical Telecommunications Network

Hi Chris,

>it's bad for bgp on the global scale, but in a VPN scenario you're talking 
>about ~10k routes? (number of planes concurrently in the air) and transitions 
>at a rate of 100/second? 500/second? (what rate is >expected at 10k planes? at 
>100k planes?)

The model is that each airplane gets one or more IPv6 prefixes and acts as a 
mobile
network. So, it has a mobile router on board, and uses the IPv6 prefixes to 
number
its downstream-attached devices and networks – an airborne Internet of Things.
The IPv6 prefixes stay the same wherever the plane roams to (more on that 
below).
But, the plane’s underlying data link connections can be changing very 
dynamically,
e.g., switch from SATCOM to cellular, update QoS due to signal fading, etc.

>For quick/dirty numbers:
>https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel-truths/how-many-planes-are-there-in-the-world/
>
>says there are 25k planes (round numbers) planes that I think qualify in your 
>pool.

You are very correct to check on the current numbers of planes. For civil 
aviation,
we currently see tens of thousands. But, the system should be flexible to 
support
several orders of magnitude more than that with the multitudes of unmanned
aircraft expected to be coming into the airspace in the near future.

>why would you change ip addressing on the plane? having them keep their 
>addressing seems simpler and more conducive to stability, no?

Right, the airplane’s on-board IPv6 prefixes used for downstream IoT addressing
never change. It is the plane’s upstream data link addresses that can change
dynamically, i.e., in the same way that a cellphone’s WiFi and/or 4G addresses
can change.

Again, the design is to keep mobility-related churn out of BGP in the core
of the network and to keep the churn out in the edges of the network.

Thanks - Fred


From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 8:24 AM
To: Templin, Fred L 
Cc: grow@ietf.org; Saccone, Gregory T ; Gaurav 
Dawra ; Acee Lindem (acee) 
Subject: Re: [GROW] A Simple BGP-based Mobile Routing System for the 
Aeronautical Telecommunications Network



On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Templin, Fred L 
> wrote:
Hi Chris,

>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"

With the Connexion By Boeing experience, we have proof that frequent injections
and withdrawals of prefixes due to mobility is bad for BGP. Plus, aircraft are

it's bad for bgp on the global scale, but in a VPN scenario you're talking 
about ~10k routes? (number of planes concurrently in the air) and transitions 
at a rate of 100/second? 500/second? (what rate is expected at 10k planes? at 
100k planes?)

For quick/dirty numbers:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel-truths/how-many-planes-are-there-in-the-world/

says there are 25k planes (round numbers) planes that I think qualify in your 
pool.

multi-link entities that often have multiple data links operational 
simultaneously,
where each data link connects to a data link service provider network that may
know nothing about BGP internally. And, we want to avoid tunneling over the
low data rate wireless data links themselves.

>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).

No, the aircraft could be moving into and out of service range dynamically, 
changing
their IP addresses 

Re: [GROW] A Simple BGP-based Mobile Routing System for the Aeronautical Telecommunications Network

[Christopher Morrow]

On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Templin, Fred L  wrote:

> Hi Chris,
>
>
>
> >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"
>
>
>
> With the Connexion By Boeing experience, we have proof that frequent
> injections
>
> and withdrawals of prefixes due to mobility is bad for BGP. Plus, aircraft
> are
>
>
it's bad for bgp on the global scale, but in a VPN scenario you're talking
about ~10k routes? (number of planes concurrently in the air) and
transitions at a rate of 100/second? 500/second? (what rate is expected at
10k planes? at 100k planes?)

For quick/dirty numbers:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel-truths/how-many-planes-are-there-in-the-world/

says there are 25k planes (round numbers) planes that I think qualify in
your pool.


> multi-link entities that often have multiple data links operational
> simultaneously,
>
> where each data link connects to a data link service provider network that
> may
>
> know nothing about BGP internally. And, we want to avoid tunneling over the
>
> low data rate wireless data links themselves.
>
>
>
> >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).
>
>
>
> No, the aircraft could be moving into and out of service range
> dynamically, changing
>
> their IP addresses frequently, switching between available data links, and
> updating
>

why would you change ip addressing on the plane? having them keep their
addressing seems simpler and more conducive to stability, no?


> their QoS conditions, e.g., based on signal strength changes. So, there is
> a lot going
>
> on from a mobility standpoint, but the architecture in our doc prevents
> that from
>
> percolating up into BGP.
>
>
>
> >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?
>
>
>
> Again, this is a simple BGP arrangement – no RFC2547, no mpls, etc. About
> whether
>
> or not it is related to grow, that’s what we’re here to find out.
>
>
>

ok, other folk ought to chime in then.


> Thanks - Fred
>
>
>
> >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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Christopher Morrow [mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, March 12, 2018 7:16 PM
>
> *To:* Templin, Fred L 
> *Cc:* grow@ietf.org; Saccone, Gregory T ;
> Gaurav Dawra 
> *Subject:* Re: [GROW] A Simple BGP-based Mobile Routing System for the
> Aeronautical Telecommunications Network
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 
> *Cc:* grow@ietf.org; Saccone, Gregory T ;
> Gaurav Dawra 
> *Subject:* Re: [GROW] A Simple BGP-based