Re: [ipwave] Comments for draft-ietf-ipwave-vehicular-networking-14.txt

Hi Fred,
I will include your comments on the aviation domain in the revision of our
IPWAVE PS draft.

Thanks for your valuable input.

Best Regards,
Paul

2020년 4월 15일 (수) 오전 12:34, Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>님이
작성:

> Hi, I read this draft and have some comments. In the aviation domain, we
> are designing
> an Aeronautical Telecommunications Network with Internet Protocol Services
> (ATN/IPS)
> with the goal of having a worldwide IPv6 Internetwork interconnecting
> aircraft, air traffic
> controllers and other authorized entities. This work is focused in the
> International Civil
> Aviation Organization (ICAO), but is now being brought into the IETF:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/liaison/1676/
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-6man-omni-interface/
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-templin-intarea-6706bis/
>
> However, the vehicular network model we have for the airplanes differs
> significantly from
> the vehicular model in this ipwave draft when in fact I think there should
> be no difference.
>
> In particular, in the ATN/IPS aircraft are statically configured with a
> Mobile Network
> Prefix (MNP) (sort of like a VIN) that travels with the aircraft wherever
> it goes. It uses
> this MNP to form a unique link-local address, then assigns the address to
> the OMNI
> interface which is a virtual interface configured over the wireless data
> link interfaces.
> Then, on the wireless links themselves, there are no on-link prefixes and
> no PIOs
> advertised by access routers. The wireless links therefore carry only
> link-local or
> MNP-addressed IPv6 packets, therefore no two vehicles will appear to be on
> the
> same subnet and no multi-link issues for subnet partitions and merges
> occur. Also,
> DAD is not needed at all due to the unique assignment of MNPs.
>
> This same model could be applied to ipwave vehicles, and would alleviate
> the problems
> stated in Section 5. In particular, the link model could adopt the OMNI
> link model (see
> the OMNI draft) where all nodes within the transportation system are
> "neighbors" on
> a shared NBMA virtual link. IPv6 ND works with no modifications, and the
> link model is
> always connected. So, there would be no need for vehicular extensions to
> IPv6 and ND.
> Likewise, mobility management services would work the same as the ATN/IPS
> design
> and would not require any adaptations for fast-moving vehicles.
>
> Final comment for now - the document lists only MIPv6 and PMIPv6 as example
> mobility services. We are considering them in the aviation domain, but
> also have
> AERO and LISP as candidate services. Since these would also apply in the
> ipwave
> case, it would be good to list them as candidates here also.
>
> Fred
> _______________________________________________
> its mailing list
> its@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/its
>