Re: [Drip] ADSB

[Robert Moskowitz <[e-mail]>]

On 8/4/20 11:27 AM, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
> Le 04/08/2020 à 17:17, Stuart W. Card a écrit :
>> 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,
>
> But, the security manifest that I have seen on slides during the 
> presentation of the DRIP WG meeting - is something below IP, right?

For now, we are dealing with broadcast messages.  Either over Bluetooth 
or WiFI (NAN).  There is NO security for the messages below the message 
package.  Just not enough payload size for anything that would work in a 
broadcast environment like a National Airspace.  All of the security we 
are specifying is inside the messages where appropriate.

That security manifest is a payload of the ASTM F3411-19 Authentication 
Message.  These messages are broadcasted as Adam mentioned in his 
'flying DRIP' comments at the beginning.

Now later I expect us to move on to Network Remote ID and Command and 
Control (C2).

Most C2 (e.g. Mavlink) is directly over the MAC, but there is a method 
to run it over UDP (I forget the UDP port commonly used...). AX 
Enterprize has done this using HIP so the UA starts with WiFi over the 
launch point, transitions to LTE, and on return back to WiFi.

Network Remote ID can work either directly from the UA, or via C2 
information to the GCS, from the GCS.  In either case, IP is assumed.  
This will probably be done via UDP.  From the UA, mobility will be 
important; from the GCS nice to have (most GCS will be stable 
location).  As UDP to a fixed Net-SP, DTLS 1.3 is a viable alternative 
to HIP.




>
> Alex
>
>  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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>

-- 
Standard Robert Moskowitz
Owner
HTT Consulting
C:248-219-2059
F:248-968-2824
E:[e-mail]

There's no limit to what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who 
gets the credit