Hi Chris,

While the ATN in not THE Global Routing system, it is A Global Routing system 
that, at least in this proposal, is based on BGP. Hence, I think the GROW 
community is an excellent place for review. I would not liken it to RFC 4364 
VPNs though since the overlay network is not tightly coupled to the underlay 
network and, in the current proposal, both the underlay and overlay are using 
the global VRF. The overlay routes simply resolve their nexthops over the 
underlay routes which will, in many cases, also be BGP routes. A better analogy 
than RFC 4364 are commercial SD-WAN implementations which avail tunnels over 
multiple networks including the Internet.

Thanks,
Acee

From: "Templin, Fred L" <fred.l.temp...@boeing.com>
Date: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 11:56 AM
To: Christopher Morrow <christopher.mor...@gmail.com>
Cc: "grow@ietf.org" <grow@ietf.org>, "Saccone, Gregory T" 
<gregory.t.sacc...@boeing.com>, Gaurav Dawra <gdawra.i...@gmail.com>, Acee 
Lindem <a...@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: [GROW] A Simple BGP-based Mobile Routing System for the 
Aeronautical Telecommunications Network

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

Reply via email to