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

"Zhangdacheng (Dacheng)" <zhangdacheng@huawei.com> Thu, 30 August 2012 08:40 UTC

Return-Path: <zhangdacheng@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 6A06521F84E1 for <cin@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 01:40:58 -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 HXFHkxphfM+K for <cin@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 01:40:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E63B021F84B6 for <cin@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 01:40:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.5-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id AJE22548; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:40:55 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:40:21 +0100
Received: from SZXEML403-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.82.67.35) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.323.3; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:40:54 +0100
Received: from SZXEML528-MBS.china.huawei.com ([169.254.5.217]) by szxeml403-hub.china.huawei.com ([::1]) with mapi id 14.01.0323.003; Thu, 30 Aug 2012 16:40:42 +0800
From: "Zhangdacheng (Dacheng)" <zhangdacheng@huawei.com>
To: Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>, "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>, "cin@ietf.org" <cin@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: why not Nemo? //Aviation Networks
Thread-Index: Ac2FiUb9C8X6jHkKQR2h42/r17x8CQAdsM1gABNKohAADrSdMA==
Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:40:41 +0000
Message-ID: <C72CBD9FE3CA604887B1B3F1D145D05E305D050B@szxeml528-mbs.china.huawei.com>
References: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B9239F25C26@szxeml545-mbx.china.huawei.com> <E1829B60731D1740BB7A0626B4FAF0A65D936C9109@XCH-NW-01V.nw.nos.boeing.com> <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B9239F2635C@szxeml545-mbx.china.huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B9239F2635C@szxeml545-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Accept-Language: zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.99.49]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Cc: "terry.davis@ijetonboard.com" <terry.davis@ijetonboard.com>
Subject: Re: [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: Thu, 30 Aug 2012 08:40:58 -0000

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