Subject: [MEXT] draft-bauer-mext-aero-topology-00

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:08:01 +0200

Hi,

thanks for writing this, i think it is very useful to understand the 
problem in more detail

some questions

- how many  ACSPs can a given MR be connected to simultaneously? You say 
that there are two global ACSPs, do they cover both all the globe or 
each of them cover half of the globe, so that you can only connect to 
one at the time?

- in section 3.1.2.  ATS/AOS CNs it reads:

   The CNs mentioned here are the communication peers from the IP point
   of view and do not necessarily have to be and might usually not be
   the "real" end system.

what does this means? what is the real end system?

- I don't understand this:
3.1.3.  MNNs

   The MNNs of the ATS and AOS domains on board an aircraft are, as
   mentioned in [I-D.ietf-mext-aero-reqs], LFNs and potentially even
   LMNs.

A LMN is a node that is running MIPv6 and that its HA is located in the 
NEMO, so how you expect to have LMNs?
Do you expect that running a HA in the aircraft will be a usual practice?

- section 3.4.  Location of Home Agents reads:

   An important discussion is the location of the HA(s) that is also

   directly related to the advertisement of the MNPs.

   There are two possible options:

   1.  An airline has a HA which is serving the aircraft belonging to

       that airline.

   2.  One of the global ACSPs provides HA(s) for the airline if they

       have an agreement with them.

   The second choice is more reasonable for two reasons.  First, for

   airlines having a relatively small number of aircraft it will not be

   cost effective to deploy HA(s),

Why do you say that? I mean, do you think that running a HA is 
expensive? I mean, i would certainly expect that an airline can afford 
running a HA, doesn't seem to cpllex to me...

   in opposite to the ACSP that can act

   as a Mobility Service Provider.  Second if the HA(s) are deployed at

   the ACSP and a local mobility management protocol like

   [I-D.ietf-netlmm-proxymip6] is deployed the aircraft will be "at

   home" as long as it is directly attached to that ACSP (as in

   Figure 2) and hence there will be no tunnelling overhead from the MR

   point of view.

but, i don't understand how would this interact with nemo ro...
I mean, if you have pmip, wouldn't that be enogh, since you cna optimize 
the path within the ACSP? I mean, if the ACSP is global, then the 
aircraft never needs to leave the ACSP, hence we don't need nemo ro, we 
only need pmip, don't we? or are you thinking to use nemo ro when you 
leave the acsp?

- later on in section 3.5.  Trust Relationships reads

   Certificates can

   be assumed between the aircraft and the ACSP, at least for the one

   acting as Mobility Services Provider.

you mean X509 digital certificates right?
(i mean it seems somehow confusing cause you also talk about certififed 
services, which i guess means soemthing else?

So, who is the CA for these certificates? Can we assume that all the 
aircrafts trust the CA that has issues these certifcates?
what about crl or any other form of stauts validation? is this needed? 
who provides this?

_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:27:01 +0200

> running a HA, doesn't seem to cpllex to me...
I low-cost company typically doesn't have the skills and resources to 
run such kind of service and would rather rely on a third party. The 
cost of running the service will probably be a function of the number of 
HAs.

In addition, charter airlines don't know where they are flying to. Here 
again they might more probably outsource their HA service (as all 
Internet services indeed).

Thierry.