Re: [cin] 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