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

>> It means these designs
>> are deployable in theory, but not really proven in working system.
>
>Not necessarily. There are certainly examples of widely-deployed
>and proven working systems based on independent-submission RFCs
>(e.g., RFC5214).

OK, change my expression: not every independent-submission RFCs has been proven in working system by the time of publish.

>> So, the
>> primary question would be: are there existing implementations, have they
>> been tested for interoperability?
>
>There is an implementation of the first edition of SEAL here:
>
>http://www.isatap.com/seal/

Glad to know this.

Regards,

Sheng

>Thanks - Fred
>fred.l.templin@boeing.com
>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> cin mailing list
>> cin@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cin