Subject: RE: [nemo] Announcing the Global HAHA draft

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 18:57:24 +0100

Hi Andrew :)
 
Thanks a lot for all this.

> Hello Pascal,
> 
> I'd like to introduce myself, I'm a member of the Connexion by Boeing
> networking team and have been following the NEMO list for about 8
months
> or so at this point.  I'll have to apologize for not being completely
> up-to-date on all the drafts within the working group as I have other
> work pulling me in other directions.  :)  I was unable to attend the
> ietf meeting last week, I hope to be able to attend in the future to
> discuss this with the working group.  I was just able to review the
> slides that you presented at the meeting.  Were there any interesting
> comments at the meeting regarding global-haha that you could summarize
> to the list?
> 
> In the mean time, I hope my comments below are helpful in starting the
> discussion.
> 
> I'd like to thank you & others for producing the global-haha draft.  I
> do think it makes sense to split the drafts since from my perspective
a
> global mobility solution may be quite different than one that is even
> optimized for regional mobility.
> 

:)

> I think one of the reasons why you haven't seen a lot of interest on
> this draft is that the truly global mobility market is really very
> small.  The aircraft industry also tends to move quite slow compared
> with the speed of technology & adoption in the "Internet" space.  When
I
> think about the objects that are really truly globally mobile in most
> cases they are limited to aircraft, maritime vessels, & people.  Even
> when you think about people further, we are mostly regionally mobile.
> Sure we travel to different parts of the globe but most of us are
> generally only regionally mobile, and when we are outside of our
normal
> region we are often there for only shorter periods of time.  Jet
> aircraft are somewhat unique in that they can traverse the entire
globe
> within a single day.

Right. And so do Jet Users :) So the problem would apply to mobile IP
telephony as well, wouldn't it?

> As I read through the draft (4.1.1.) I can see areas where the
tunneling
> in a global environment can still cause a large increase in latency.
> Consider the following case.  Service provider A has a ground
> global-haha network that an aircraft attach to in London & Sydney, in
> this case the aircraft is owned by company Z with operations in
Chicago
> served by Service provider B.   The plane is on the ground in Sydney
and
> maintenance staff are using the onboard IP phone to talk to operations
> staff in Chicago.   Given a set of BGP routing tables it is possible
> that the path through the London HA would be a perceived best path
from
> Chicago.  In this case the call would be routed from Chicago to London
> to Sydney instead of directly to Sydney.  In the v4 world we have used
a
> BGP rehoming solution that can largely negate this issue.  At this
point
> it is unclear to me if a similar rehoming solution is possible or
> desirable in the multihomed v6 world.  This also may be too much of a
> corner case but it is nonetheless an interesting case.
> 
> In my opinion I believe that for a global mobility standard to be
truly
> successful it must allow for the mobile networks to roam between
service
> providers & BGP ASNs.  This aspect brings up another whole set of
issues

Right. I believe that the satellite sites should proxy for roaming
(other SP) clients as well, and must be able to establish RO tunnels
with satellites that belong to other SPs. The latter part could be
either proactive like BGP, reactive like a form of NHRP or a mix of the
2. The former seems to be the core of your question:

The equivalent already happens already with mobile phones. It is a
matter of SP agreements and roaming features in radius (proxy radius),
that sort of things. In the HAHA case, this means that a satellite might
not only inject Home routes for its ISP into the local fabric, but also
Home routes for other ISPs for whom agreements exist and which would not
own its own satellite close by.

So the phone in the plane would proxy in Sydney, and the proxy would
form a primary binding with a HA, that could be cross ISP, in Chicago.
The return path, which seems to be the problem you address, would be
following the primary binding path, to Sydney. 

> with address allocation, v6 multi-homing, and integration with BGP.
> (Which maybe outside the scope of the NEMO charter?)   I also note
that

Right. If this takes off ( :) ) we might create a HAHA list. Depends on
you... There is a number of problems to be solved...

> many of these issues are still not finalized in the v6 world from my
> current readings.  Authentication & Authorization for MR's to the mesh
> between ASNs is also a consideration.  As Terry Davis one of my
> colleagues stated in a previous mail, it is likely that the aircraft
> networks will be connected to a number of other networks via different
> mechanisms, some of them will be satellite based, some air-to-ground,
> and some ground-to-ground when the aircraft is between flights.
> Specifically for the ground-to-ground links it is unlikely that a
single
> service provider would be able to provide global coverage at any large
> majority of world airports.
> 
Right. The discussion should involve SP people I guess.

Pascal