Re: [cin] why not Nemo? //Aviation Networks

Hi, Fred,

I knew IRON, VET and SEAL. They looks like a set of well-designed system. However, they all published as Experimental or Informational documents. They all published through independent submission. It means these designs are deployable in theory, but not really proven in working system. So, the primary question would be: are there existing implementations, have they been tested for interoperability?

Best regards,

Sheng

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com]
>Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 12:13 AM
>To: Sheng Jiang; cin@ietf.org
>Cc: terry.davis@ijetonboard.com
>Subject: RE: why not Nemo? //Aviation Networks
>
>Hi Sheng,
>
>IRON was also designed specifically for aviation networks, and
>I believe it is better suited to that purpose (and others) than
>NEMO. A first version of the IRON architecture was published as
>RFC6179, and is based on its constituent mechanisms VET (RFC5558)
>and SEAL (RFC5320). These three documents are now being published
>in a second edition, found here:
>
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-ironbis/
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-intarea-vet/
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-intarea-seal/
>
>Let me know if you have any questions or comments on these.
>
>Thanks - Fred
>fred.l.templin@boeing.com
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cin-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:cin-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
>> Sheng Jiang
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 6:55 PM
>> To: cin@ietf.org
>> Cc: terry.davis@ijetonboard.com
>> Subject: [cin] why not Nemo? //Aviation Networks
>>
>> Hi, all,
>>
>> Read through the mail archive, Aviation Networks looks like an interesting
>> case that needs to work on. It needs some protocol work by the current
>> description.
>>
>> However, I don't find the discussion so far mentioned MEMO at all. For my
>> memory, MEMO (RFC 3963, also a set of relevant  RFCs later, referring as
>> Network Mobility) was designed for these scenarios, aircrafts, trains,
>> etc. Mobile routers with Nemo do NOT generate any extra global routing
>> items. IETF had put considerable efforts on mobility support, particularly
>> in IPv6. It would be good to start investigation from these existing works
>> though they were not deployed yet. Maybe further investigation found
>Nemo
>> was not enough for certain technical requirements, then some
>improvement
>> may be needed.
>>
>> Best regardsm
>>
>> Sheng
>> _______________________________________________
>> cin mailing list
>> cin@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cin