Hi Chris, >it's bad for bgp on the global scale, but in a VPN scenario you're talking >about ~10k routes? (number of planes concurrently in the air) and transitions >at a rate of 100/second? 500/second? (what rate is >expected at 10k planes? at >100k planes?)
The model is that each airplane gets one or more IPv6 prefixes and acts as a mobile network. So, it has a mobile router on board, and uses the IPv6 prefixes to number its downstream-attached devices and networks – an airborne Internet of Things. The IPv6 prefixes stay the same wherever the plane roams to (more on that below). But, the plane’s underlying data link connections can be changing very dynamically, e.g., switch from SATCOM to cellular, update QoS due to signal fading, etc. >For quick/dirty numbers: >https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel-truths/how-many-planes-are-there-in-the-world/ > >says there are 25k planes (round numbers) planes that I think qualify in your >pool. You are very correct to check on the current numbers of planes. For civil aviation, we currently see tens of thousands. But, the system should be flexible to support several orders of magnitude more than that with the multitudes of unmanned aircraft expected to be coming into the airspace in the near future. >why would you change ip addressing on the plane? having them keep their >addressing seems simpler and more conducive to stability, no? Right, the airplane’s on-board IPv6 prefixes used for downstream IoT addressing never change. It is the plane’s upstream data link addresses that can change dynamically, i.e., in the same way that a cellphone’s WiFi and/or 4G addresses can change. Again, the design is to keep mobility-related churn out of BGP in the core of the network and to keep the churn out in the edges of the network. Thanks - Fred From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 8:24 AM To: Templin, Fred L <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com> Cc: grow@ietf.org; Saccone, Gregory T <gregory.t.sacc...@boeing.com>; Gaurav Dawra <gdawra.i...@gmail.com>; Acee Lindem (acee) <a...@cisco.com> Subject: Re: [GROW] A Simple BGP-based Mobile Routing System for the Aeronautical Telecommunications Network On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 10:58 AM, Templin, Fred L <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com<mailto:fred.l.temp...@boeing.com>> wrote: Hi Chris, >yup, sure what I was proposing is that they DO participate. >I could see a world where the plane has a simple BGP instance, and some >orchestration does the equivalent of the mobile cell hand-off for hand-devices: > "about to leave AS1, start peering with AS2, ... drop peering with AS1" With the Connexion By Boeing experience, we have proof that frequent injections and withdrawals of prefixes due to mobility is bad for BGP. Plus, aircraft are it's bad for bgp on the global scale, but in a VPN scenario you're talking about ~10k routes? (number of planes concurrently in the air) and transitions at a rate of 100/second? 500/second? (what rate is expected at 10k planes? at 100k planes?) For quick/dirty numbers: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel-truths/how-many-planes-are-there-in-the-world/ says there are 25k planes (round numbers) planes that I think qualify in your pool. multi-link entities that often have multiple data links operational simultaneously, where each data link connects to a data link service provider network that may know nothing about BGP internally. And, we want to avoid tunneling over the low data rate wireless data links themselves. >I imagine each plane could even maintain more than one live BGP session with >the ground stations, even. It's good to hear that the expected churn is low, >that makes 'plane based bgp' even more >attractive (to me anyway). No, the aircraft could be moving into and out of service range dynamically, changing their IP addresses frequently, switching between available data links, and updating why would you change ip addressing on the plane? having them keep their addressing seems simpler and more conducive to stability, no? their QoS conditions, e.g., based on signal strength changes. So, there is a lot going on from a mobility standpoint, but the architecture in our doc prevents that from percolating up into BGP. >Again this still sounds like /2547 mpls vpn/ sorts of stuff, not something >super related to grow's 'global routing (internet focused) operations' area, >is it? Again, this is a simple BGP arrangement – no RFC2547, no mpls, etc. About whether or not it is related to grow, that’s what we’re here to find out. ok, other folk ought to chime in then. Thanks - Fred >in a 2547 sort of scenario (any of the vpn overlays really) the carrier >network doesn't have to know anything at all about the vpn content or routes. From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com<mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com>] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 7:16 PM To: Templin, Fred L <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com<mailto:fred.l.temp...@boeing.com>> Cc: grow@ietf.org<mailto:grow@ietf.org>; Saccone, Gregory T <gregory.t.sacc...@boeing.com<mailto:gregory.t.sacc...@boeing.com>>; Gaurav Dawra <gdawra.i...@gmail.com<mailto:gdawra.i...@gmail.com>> Subject: Re: [GROW] A Simple BGP-based Mobile Routing System for the Aeronautical Telecommunications Network On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:59 PM, Templin, Fred L <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com<mailto:fred.l.temp...@boeing.com>> wrote: Hi Chris, Thanks for the comments, but no the planes (as Clients) do not do BGP; only the ground-domain Servers and Relays do BGP. Servers are ASBRs for stub ASes and connect to Relays that are ASBRs for a core AS in a hub-and-spokes fashion. When a plane contacts a Server, it becomes part of that Server’s stub AS. And, because planes do not move rapidly from Server to Server, the amount of mobility-related BGP update churn as seen by the core AS is dampened. But, the planes themselves do not participate in BGP, and are therefore not mobile ASes. yup, sure what I was proposing is that they DO participate. I could see a world where the plane has a simple BGP instance, and some orchestration does the equivalent of the mobile cell hand-off for hand-devices: "about to leave AS1, start peering with AS2, ... drop peering with AS1" I imagine each plane could even maintain more than one live BGP session with the ground stations, even. It's good to hear that the expected churn is low, that makes 'plane based bgp' even more attractive (to me anyway). Again this still sounds like /2547 mpls vpn/ sorts of stuff, not something super related to grow's 'global routing (internet focused) operations' area, is it? in a 2547 sort of scenario (any of the vpn overlays really) the carrier network doesn't have to know anything at all about the vpn content or routes. Thanks - Fred From: Christopher Morrow [mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com<mailto:christopher.mor...@gmail.com>] Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 12:31 PM To: Templin, Fred L <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com<mailto:fred.l.temp...@boeing.com>> Cc: grow@ietf.org<mailto:grow@ietf.org>; Saccone, Gregory T <gregory.t.sacc...@boeing.com<mailto:gregory.t.sacc...@boeing.com>>; Gaurav Dawra <gdawra.i...@gmail.com<mailto:gdawra.i...@gmail.com>> Subject: Re: [GROW] A Simple BGP-based Mobile Routing System for the Aeronautical Telecommunications Network (as a normal participant) On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 3:14 PM, Templin, Fred L <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com<mailto:fred.l.temp...@boeing.com>> wrote: Hello, We have published a document that proposes BGP as the core of a mobile routing service for worldwide civil aviation in the Aeronautical Telecommunications Network with Internet Protocol Services (ATN/IPS). This would be an overlay network deployment of standard BGP with ASes arranged in such a way as to mitigate the mobility-related instability that was inherent in past approaches. The system also leverages an adjunct route optimization service known as AERO. The ATN/IPS is planned to eventually replace existing air traffic management services with an IPv6-based service as part of a long-term evolution. The choice of mobile routing services is being made now, with this approach, LISP and Mobile IPv6 as candidates. Although the decision is being considered in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), we feel the time is right to socialize the effort in the IETF. Hey, much of this document reads like: "hey, the global internet is messy, and slowish, we think making our own bgp domain will make that problem go away" Followed by what smells a lot like any old RFC2547 MPLS VPN deployment. I'm not sure I buy the need for 'ip mobility' in a world where the plane COULD be a BGP speaker and just negotiate upstream connectivity 'in real time'... but overall this just sounds like any other 2547 deployment to me? You'd have to convince your constituent parts that depending upon various providers 2547 interconnection agreements to work out properly is sane/useful/cost-effective/not-prone-to-explosion... but ... sure, make a 2547 network, make the planes do bgp, and orchestrate the add/remove peerings part across the network as planes move around.
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
