Re: [dtn-security] Newbie seeking some security related advice

I agree about being wary of marketing-speak.

However, if you have an environment where you are sometimes disrupted
then looking at a DTN option is quite reasonable. I can well imagine
someone doing a good job with voice over the BP esp. with that
superseding bundle stuff (2nd mention today:-), but of course doing
it well would be non-trivial.

Who's talking about DTN for air traffic control?

S.

Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0) wrote:
> Graham,
> 
>  
> 
> Some applications simply are not delay tolerant.  If I need to say
> “Incoming, take cover!”  10 seconds delay is unacceptable.
> 
>  
> 
> I hear some talk about DTN for  air traffic control.  Safety of flight,
> safety of life, ... I don’t think so.  I’ll walk!
> 
>  
> 
> Now, for some air traffic application such a perhaps passenger lists of
> fuel and weight, a few seconds or a minute may not be an issue, but at
> that point you have good links and don’t need DTN.
> 
>  
> 
> Beware of the Buzz Words and Marketing.  DTN is great for some things,
> bad for others and there are situations were one could not communicate
> at all without DTN.
> 
>  
> 
> You have to educate the customer.   Do so in your proposal and point out
> the folly of DTN in a primarily voice network and you will take the
> contract from those proposing otherwise.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> /Will
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* Graham Keellings (Leonix Solutions Pte Ltd)
> [mailto:Graham@LeonixSolutions.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 09, 2009 1:50 AM
> *To:* redi@bbn.com
> *Cc:* 'Armando Caro'; Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RHN0);
> dtn-security@maillists.intel-research.net
> *Subject:* Re: [dtn-security] Newbie seeking some security related advice
> 
>  
> 
> ....
> 
> As Armando describes, we are currently using streaming voice over BP.
> 
> Individual packets contain 20-100ms of voice, so sending those individual
> 
> buffers in an individual disrupted fashion would not make a whole lot of
> 
> sense.  
> 
>     Note that we are also working on providing voice-snippets of 1-10s
> 
>       
> 
> Wow! That surely *is* delay tolerant (if not disruption tolerant). You
> have to wait until you have collected 10 seconds of voice at the sender
> before transmitting. That guarantees a lag of over 9 seconds at the
> receiver, or 18+ seconds to get a reply to a question.
> 
> I think that I need to rethink :-)   Or,  at least, we can say that such
> delay might be acceptable in some scenarios, but not in others. Nasa
> might have no choice, given the lag inherent in very long range
> transmissions, but I doubt that DARPA can accept multi-seconds delays in
> combat scenarios.
> 
> I am looking at a "real time" voice network, where it has been strongly
> "suggested" that I use DTN, but I am thinking that all that it will
> bring to my particular use case is that I don't have to worry about
> "link lost" for a short time bringing down the call.  My personal feel
> is that DTN is not the right tool for the job for a mainly voice based
> short range system where speed of reply is of the essence. I don't see
> that the benefits justify it, but then I don't get to make the decision
> (and if I recommend against it, I probably don't get the contract. Sigh)
> 
> Thank you very much for taking he time to reply and for helping me to
> clarify my thoughts.
> 
> With best wishes,
> 
> Graham
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dtn-security mailing list
> dtn-security@maillists.intel-research.net
> http://maillists.intel-research.net/mailman/listinfo/dtn-security