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

Agree! I also think we need to clarify whether the backward compatibility is a critical issues we should consider since in the previous discussion in the list it seems that people have more interests in how to generate critical networks with new technologies. 

Dacheng 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sheng Jiang
> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 10:25 AM
> To: Zhangdacheng (Dacheng); Templin, Fred L; cin@ietf.org
> Cc: terry.davis@ijetonboard.com
> Subject: RE: why not Nemo? //Aviation Networks
> 
> In my observation, Critical Infrastructure Networks can be very different from
> each other: aviation networks may have more common with train networks,
> while hospital networks and Grid networks may have very different
> requirements. It may be worth to starting investigation/analysis/ps with one or
> two specific network. Aviation network would be a good start, I guess. Or
> focusing on a certain technical branch may work out, like mobility network
> support.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Sheng
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Zhangdacheng (Dacheng)
> >Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 4:41 PM
> >To: Sheng Jiang; Templin, Fred L; cin@ietf.org
> >Cc: terry.davis@ijetonboard.com
> >Subject: RE: why not Nemo? //Aviation Networks
> >
> >Hi, in the bar bof, has any conclusion been made on the topics which cin
> >intends to cover or what cin is not interest in? It would be good if we can
> >clarify the issues we intend to address before we start the discussion..
> >
> >Dacheng
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: cin-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:cin-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> >Sheng
> >> Jiang
> >> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:27 AM
> >> To: Templin, Fred L; cin@ietf.org
> >> Cc: terry.davis@ijetonboard.com
> >> Subject: 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
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> cin mailing list
> >> cin@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cin