Re: [MEXT] comments todraft-bernardos-mext-aero-nemo-ro-sol-analysis-01.txt

[Ryuji Wakikawa <[e-mail]>]

Hi Carlos,


On 2008/11/17, at 11:35, Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano wrote:

> Hi Ryuji,
>
> El lun, 17-11-2008 a las 11:05 -0600, Ryuji Wakikawa escribió:
>> Hi Carlos and Marcelo,
>>
>> Thanks for writing this document.
>> It summarizes the list of right questions to aviation industry.
>> Unfortunately, I don't have answers to any of them :-)
>
> Thanks for reading the draft and for your comments.
>
> Some in line comments below...
>
>>
>> Some comments
>>
>> In section 3.1,
>>    o  if a craft attached to an ANSP access network is communicating
>>       with a CN attached to the same ANSP, is it required for the  
>> NEMO
>>       RO solution to survive when the link of the ANSP to its gACSP
>> goes
>>       down? or put in a different way, would it be OK for such a
>>       communication to be broken?  It should be noted that the  
>> default
>>       MRHA path used by the NEMO Basic Support protocol would likely
>>       fail in this scenario.
>>
>> Are you sure we need to consider the scenario of gACSP failure?
>> gACSP failure seems very critical errors and MUST NOT be happened...
>
> The point is that we don't know if this should be considered or not,  
> we
> just pointed out that this is a possible situation (we don't know if
> this is likely to happen). This is something that the aviation people
> should let us know...

Right.
Is gASP failure equal to the BGP DFZ failure on the Internet, no?

>>
>>
>> In section 3.2,
>>    entities belong to the same administrative domain.  However, this
>>    does not mean that this scenario is excluded from having trust
>>    issues, since a particular solution might require to inject routes
>> in
>>    some parts of the network (e.g., RO entities owned by an airline  
>> and
>>    placed in networks not managed by the airline, anycast routing,
>>    etc.), and this could require additional trust relationships.
>>
>> This additional trust relationships are not always required to be
>> dynamic one.
>> It might be just business agreements, isn't it?
>
> They might be, yes, but they are required, right?. The point is that  
> we
> don't know whether these trust relationships/business agreements can  
> be
> assumed in the aviation scenario or not.

My point was that
this trust relationship issue is not always technical one, but  
political one.

thanks,
ryuji

>
>
>>
>> I think we need more information from aviation industry such as
>> - How many CNs does each MR communicates with?
>> - How many ANSPs does each MR communicate with?
>> - The least HOPs path is not always the shortest latency path.
>>   It depends on the topology (L1-L3) of gACSP and ANSPs.
>>   Since the aviation network is somehow closed network and designed
>> by themselves,
>>   we need more detailed information of topology information.
>>
>
> 	I agree this information would be also useful for the solution  
> design.
>
> 	Thanks,
>
> 	Carlos
>
>> regards,
>> ryuji
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> MEXT mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext
> -- 
> Carlos Jesús Bernardos Cano     http://www.netcoms.net
> GPG FP: D29B 0A6A 639A A561 93CA  4D55 35DC BA4D D170 4F67
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  WEEDEV 2009: 2nd Workshop on Experimental Evaluation and
>        Deployment Experiences on Vehicular networks
>                  http://www.weedev.org/
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext