Re: [Drip] ADSB

["Stuart W. Card" <[e-mail]>]

I just want to respond to one line that I think comes from confusion:

> But if we have reluctance about the use of ADS-B, and thus of IP, 
> and we recommend Bluetooth-without-IP to identify drones

We aren't recommending Bluetooth-without-IP, we are _supporting_ it, as
it is specified in ASTM F3411, which most of the regulators are dubbing
as an approved technical means of regulatory compliance.

AFAIK, no one runs IP over ADS-B, which was designed as a narrowband
application specific communications stovepipe, not a data link
supporting higher layer network protocols, so not great for IP.

More importantly, we have no "reluctance about the use of... IP", which
is an entirely separate issue from ADS-B.

On 8/4/2020 9:52 AM, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> architectural layers discussion...
> 
> Le 30/07/2020 à 11:49, shuaiizhao(Shuai Zhao) a écrit :
>> Just to echo Stu on the ADSB, AFAIK, ADSB will  not be feasible for
>> most of the drones mostly due to SwaP, commercial drones might be
>> exception.
> 
> It might be that ADS-B might be forbidden in drones on Earth, but how
> about the drones on Mars? ('NASA Mars helicopters', or ESA too).  On
> Mars there would be much less such drones, so less risk of interference.
> 
> With such a system (ADS-B under IP) one could re-use DTN (Delay Tolerant
> Networking) between planets, and so identify drones even on Mars.
> 
> But if we have reluctance about the use of ADS-B, and thus of IP, and we
> recommend Bluetooth-without-IP to identify drones, then we might become
> too dependent on it?
> 
> (do not get me wrong, I do like Bluetooth, but I like many other things
> together with Bluetooth).
> 
> Alex
> 
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Shuai Zhao
>>
>> *From: *Tm-rid <[e-mail]> on behalf of "Stuart W.
>> Card" <[e-mail]> *Date: *Wednesday, July 29, 2020 at
>> 19:46 *To: *"[e-mail]" <[e-mail]> *Subject: *[Drip]
>> ADSB (was: Review of draft-drip-arch-02 w.r.t. RFC6973, RFC8280 and
>> other)(Internet mail)
>>
>> Sorry for the slow reply.
>>
>> ADS-B is gradually being mandated for essentially all manned
>> aircraft.
>>
>> ADSB-In and ADSB-Out are mandated for airliners: -In gives their
>> pilots
>>
>> some Situational Awareness (SA) of other aircraft; -Out gives other
>>
>> pilots SA of the airliners.
>>
>> "ADSB-Out" is mandated even for small general aviation aircraft: it
>> does
>>
>> not directly benefit the pilots of those aircraft; but by providing
>> SA
>>
>> to others, it indirectly benefits all.
>>
>> ADSB is _not_ going to be deployed on large numbers of small UAS as
>> it
>>
>> would overwhelm the limited bandwidth available at those lower radio
>>
>> frequencies (which propagate long ranges). In fact, it is expected to
>> be
>>
>> explicitly prohibited in the US per the FAA NPRM; I suspect most of
>> the
>>
>> rest of the world will do likewise.
>>
>> ADSB is also altogether insecure.
>>
>> On 7/9/2020 3:02 AM, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> They call it "ADS-B Receivers" (Automatic Dependent Surveillance -
>>
>> Broadcast).
>>
>> I wouuld like to ask if there is a packet dump available showing
>> such
>>
>> presence data form planes?  Maybe wireshark already supports it,
>> maybe
>>
>> it even dissects it...
>>
>> -- 
>>
>> -----------------------------------------
>>
>> Stuart W. Card, PhD, Principal Engineer
>>
>> AX Enterprize, LLC  www.axenterprize.com
>>
>> 4947 Commercial Drive, Yorkville NY 13495
>>
>>
> 


-- 
-----------------------------------------
Stuart W. Card, PhD, Principal Engineer
AX Enterprize, LLC  www.axenterprize.com
4947 Commercial Drive, Yorkville NY 13495