Subject: [MEXT] correspondent router drafts

From: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 18:03:55 -0500

This includes comments on draft-bernardos-mext-nemo-ro-cr-00 and
draft-wakikawa-mext-cr-consideration-00.
 
Both of these are great contributions, in my opinion, the first gives a
requirement-by-requirement analysis of the CR approach for aero
use, that I largely agree with.
 
For the CR solution possibility, I was thinking there would be a small
number of CRs with each ANSP, with under a hundred total.  I think
it would be possible to configure the list of these in an MR initially as
a static configuration, and update it using some new message from
the HA that informs it of changes to the set of CRs.  This would assume
that as operational entities bring CRs online or take them offline that
they communicate those changes to each other, and the changes
would be pushed from the HAs to the MRs.  The nice thing about this
is that it is much less overhead than trying to have the MR discover
CRs itself, or having the CRs somehow discover the MR's traffic, both
of which seem doomed to me.
 
The criticisms with the CR approach that Ryuji's draft brings forward
are all credible, but I see most of them as more related to general
Internet use of the CR approach, rather than specific to aviation.  I
believe the CR approach is feasible for the aviation world's constraints.
HOWEVER, if it doesn't work for other industries, it violates one of
our listed "desirable features", so I believe that finding out if CR can
be made to work for other industries needs to be explored now.  As
I understand, the global HAHA approach has some desirability to
other (larger) industries, which gives it a major advantage.
 
One idea I had after reading Ryuji's explanation of the problem of
selecting an egress CR from a site is that it may be possible to
leverage the possibility to aggregate aero IPv6 addresses in order
to reduce the impact of routing advertisements for the MNPs.  I
know at one point Terry Davis was working with ICAO to request
an IPv6 allocation to be used for aeronautics, and this block would
be cut up between the various stakeholders.  It might be possible
to have all the MNPs drawn from the same block so that the routes
would aggregate.  This doesn't totally remove the problem, though,
but it may make it simpler.

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

---

From: Ryuji Wakikawa <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 18:35:29 +0900

Hello Eddy,

Thanks for comments,
please find my reply inline.

> of which seem doomed to me.

When I was working on the Optimized Route Cache (ORC) protocol (one of  
CR solution submitted a long time ago),
we tried several approaches to discover CR, using DNS, anycast, and  
even static configuration!

If MR pre-knows a set of CNs, setting up CR info locally and  
statically is the easiest approach.

> other (larger) industries, which gives it a major advantage.

Yes, my document analysis CR issues in general scenarios.
I see there are plenty of assumptions in aviation industry.

We must be very careful to standardize a RO solution if there are  
piles of assumptions (which are only available in aviation industry).
Please imagine if somebody deploys that RO solution without expected  
assumptions, it breaks the protocol behavior and might brings security  
threats.

Another question is whether an RO solution is only for aviation  
industry or not.
Will ATS  be inter-connected to other infrastructures and consider the  
interoperability in a near future?
If we have a CR based solution only for aviation industry, I believe  
it should be somehow capable of operation in general scenarios, too.

> but it may make it simpler.

Very interesting.
if aviation industry obtains a prefix chunk for all flights, we can do  
more optimization in solution space in terms of aggregation, route  
injection, etc.

regards,
ryuji

---

From: "Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 04:43:27 -0500

This document from a recent ICAO meeting seems to indicate that's still the plan:
 
http://www.icao.int/anb/panels/acp/wg/i/wgi7/ACP-WGI07-WP02-Draft%20ICAO%20IPv6%20Addressing%20Plan.doc

________________________________

From: Ryuji Wakikawa [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Mon 7/28/2008 4:35 AM
To: Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [MEXT] correspondent router drafts

Very interesting.

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:48:52 +0200

Hi Ryuji,

(some text skipped)

> it should be somehow capable of operation in general scenarios, too.

	I guess the WG is chartered to work on a solution for the aviation
industry (not to work on a generic NEMO RO solution). I completely agree
that it'd be much better to have a generic solution (covering other
scenarios), though my feeling is that this would be harder (not even
know if feasible), given the particular requirements of the aviation
industry.

	Regards,

	Carlos

-- 
Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67
_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:02:07 +0200

No, Carlos, at this point in time the WG missions is about collecting 
requirements for uses cases and understands the open issues. The charter 
is not saying that separate solutions will be developed for different 
use cases. A solution that solve the same problems for all studied use 
case is preferable though we may not have the choice.

At least this is were we were standing on when the NEMO WG charter was 
revised just before WGs were merged together.
Thierry.

Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 12:20:13 +0200

Hi Thierry,

	Well, the charter definitely says that the WG has to work on collecting
needs of NEMO RO for 3 use cases. However, the WG at this point is only
chartered work on a document (to be submitted as proposed standard) for
the aviation use case. Regarding the work on solutions for automotive an
CE, the charter says the following: "Work on automotive and personal
mobile router solutions requires rechartering."

	Regards,

	Carlos

---

From: "CERASI Eivan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:29:29 +0200

Yes, that was the input paper. As we are still working on a global
prefix so the outcome is different.
 
The current status is that each MSP obtains his own prefix (/32) which
is to be advertised via BGP on the ATN.

In particular:

1. Each aircraft constitutes a /56 IPv6 end site, based on the ICAO 24
bit aircraft address.

2. Mobile IPv6 is assumed as the mobility solution. Each aircraft is
assumed to be associated with one or more  

3. An aircraft may have different subnets for different services (ATS,
AOC, AAC, APC, etc.).

Mobility Service Providers (MSPs), which deploy a Home Agent advertising
a /32 aggregate prefix route that contains the aircraft's assignment.

Mobility Service Provider (MSP): a service provider that provides Mobile
IPv6 service (i.e. Home Agents).

NB: The use of the ICAO aircraft address is a recommendation.

Eivan

	From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
Behalf Of Eddy, Wesley M. (GRC-RCN0)[VZ]
	Sent: Monday 28 July 2008 11:43
	To: Ryuji Wakikawa
	Cc: [email-masked]
	Subject: Re: [MEXT] correspondent router drafts

	This document from a recent ICAO meeting seems to indicate
that's still the plan:

http://www.icao.int/anb/panels/acp/wg/i/wgi7/ACP-WGI07-WP02-Draft%20ICAO
%20IPv6%20Addressing%20Plan.doc

	
	Very interesting.
	if aviation industry obtains a prefix chunk for all flights, we
can do 
	more optimization in solution space in terms of aggregation,
route 
	injection, etc.

____

This message and any files transmitted with it are legally privileged and intended for the sole use of the individual(s) or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by reply and delete the message and any attachments from your system. Any unauthorised use or disclosure of the content of this message is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

Nothing in this e-mail message amounts to a contractual or legal commitment on the part of EUROCONTROL, unless it is confirmed by appropriately signed hard copy.

Any views expressed in this message are those of the sender.