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

[Sheng Jiang <[e-mail]>]

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; [e-mail]
>Cc: [e-mail]
>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: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>Sheng
>> Jiang
>> Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:27 AM
>> To: Templin, Fred L; [e-mail]
>> Cc: [e-mail]
>> 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:[e-mail]]
>> >Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 12:13 AM
>> >To: Sheng Jiang; [e-mail]
>> >Cc: [e-mail]
>> >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
>> >[e-mail]
>> >
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
>> >> Sheng Jiang
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 6:55 PM
>> >> To: [e-mail]
>> >> Cc: [e-mail]
>> >> 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
>> >> [e-mail]
>> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cin
>> _______________________________________________
>> cin mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cin