[cin] why not Nemo? //Aviation Networks
Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com> Wed, 29 August 2012 01:55 UTC
Return-Path: <jiangsheng@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: cin@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cin@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A94A021F8526 for <cin@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vjZ3UQO2g7kQ for <cin@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:55:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3541D21F8499 for <cin@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Aug 2012 18:55:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AKA71335; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 01:55:31 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 02:55:03 +0100
Received: from SZXEML435-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.72.61.63) by lhreml406-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 02:55:30 +0100
Received: from szxeml545-mbx.china.huawei.com ([169.254.1.47]) by szxeml435-hub.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:54:57 +0800
From: Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>
To: "cin@ietf.org" <cin@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: why not Nemo? //Aviation Networks
Thread-Index: Ac2FiUb9C8X6jHkKQR2h42/r17x8CQ==
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 01:54:56 +0000
Message-ID: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B9239F25C26@szxeml545-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-cr-hashedpuzzle: BrQS CJX1 DiFm Eer4 G9gS KPsK MlD4 MyAK NHsA NpBk OGqm PBRm QR92 SLMI TCFP UATZ; 2; YwBpAG4AQABpAGUAdABmAC4AbwByAGcAOwB0AGUAcgByAHkALgBkAGEAdgBpAHMAQABpAGoAZQB0AG8AbgBiAG8AYQByAGQALgBjAG8AbQA=; Sosha1_v1; 7; {50D53FFA-D9E9-4EF9-81AF-89DDB2431B9F}; agBpAGEAbgBnAHMAaABlAG4AZwBAAGgAdQBhAHcAZQBpAC4AYwBvAG0A; Wed, 29 Aug 2012 01:54:51 GMT; dwBoAHkAIABuAG8AdAAgAE4AZQBtAG8APwAgAC8ALwBBAHYAaQBhAHQAaQBvAG4AIABOAGUAdAB3AG8AcgBrAHMA
x-cr-puzzleid: {50D53FFA-D9E9-4EF9-81AF-89DDB2431B9F}
x-originating-ip: [10.111.99.31]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "terry.davis@ijetonboard.com" <terry.davis@ijetonboard.com>
Subject: [cin] why not Nemo? //Aviation Networks
X-BeenThere: cin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <cin.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/cin>, <mailto:cin-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cin>
List-Post: <mailto:cin@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cin-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cin>, <mailto:cin-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2012 01:55:34 -0000
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] why not Nemo? //Aviation Networks Sheng Jiang
- Re: [cin] why not Nemo? //Aviation Networks Templin, Fred L
- Re: [cin] why not Nemo? //Aviation Networks Sheng Jiang
- Re: [cin] why not Nemo? //Aviation Networks Zhangdacheng (Dacheng)
- Re: [cin] why not Nemo? //Aviation Networks Templin, Fred L
- Re: [cin] why not Nemo? //Aviation Networks Sheng Jiang
- Re: [cin] why not Nemo? //Aviation Networks Sheng Jiang
- Re: [cin] why not Nemo? //Aviation Networks Zhangdacheng (Dacheng)
- Re: [cin] why not Nemo? //Aviation Networks Templin, Fred L
- Re: [cin] why not Nemo? //Aviation Networks SM