[Search] [txt|pdf|bibtex] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: 00 01 02 03 04 rfc5522                                        
MEXT Working Group                                               W. Eddy
Internet-Draft                                                   Verizon
Intended status: Informational                                W. Ivancic
Expires: August 28, 2008                                            NASA
                                                                T. Davis
                                                                  Boeing
                                                       February 25, 2008


NEMO Route Optimization Requirements for Operational Use in Aeronautics
                 and Space Exploration Mobile Networks
                      draft-ietf-mext-aero-reqs-01

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on August 28, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

Abstract

   This document describes the requirements and desired properties of
   NEMO Route Optimization techniques for use in global networked
   communications systems for aeronautics and space exploration.




Eddy, et al.             Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft     Aero and Space NEMO RO Requirements     February 2008


   This version has been reviewed by members of the International Civil
   Aviation Orgnanization (ICAO) and other aeronautical communications
   standards bodies, and contributed to by a number of aeronautical
   communications experts outside the normal IETF process.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  3
   2.  NEMO RO Scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.1.  Aeronautical Communications Scenarios  . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.2.  Space Exploration Scenarios  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
   3.  Required Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
     3.1.  Req1 - Separability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.2.  Req2 - Multihoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
     3.3.  Req3 - Latency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
     3.4.  Req4 - Availability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
     3.5.  Req5 - Packet Loss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
     3.6.  Req6 - Scalability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     3.7.  Req7 - Efficient Signaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
     3.8.  Req8 - Security  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
     3.9.  Req9 - Adaptability  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   4.  Desirable Characteristics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     4.1.  Des1 - Configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     4.2.  Des2 - Nesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     4.3.  Des3 - System Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     4.4.  Des4 - VMN Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
     4.5.  Des5 - Generality  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   5.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
   6.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   7.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
   8.  Changes from draft-eddy-nemo-aero-reqs-02  . . . . . . . . . . 22
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
   Appendix A.  Basics of IP-based Aeronautical Networking  . . . . . 24
   Appendix B.  Basics of IP-based Space Networking . . . . . . . . . 25
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 27












Eddy, et al.             Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft     Aero and Space NEMO RO Requirements     February 2008


1.  Introduction

   As background the NEMO terminology and NEMO goals and requirements
   documents are suggested reading [4] [5].  The drafts produced as part
   of the Mobile Platform Internet (MPI) effort are also of relevence,
   and some of the material in this document is borrowed from the MPI
   drafts [6] [7].

   The base NEMO standard [1] allows Mobile IPv6 [2] to be used by
   mobile routers, although NEMO does not support Mobile IPv6's Route
   Optimization (RO) features.  NEMO allows mobile networks to
   efficiently remain reachable via fixed IP address prefixes no matter
   where they relocate within the network topology.  This is
   accomplished through the maintenance of a bidirectional tunnel
   between a NEMO Mobile Router (MR) and a NEMO Home Agent (HA) placed
   at some relatively stable point in the network.  Corresponding Nodes
   (CNs) that communicate with Mobile Network Nodes (MNNs) behind an MR
   do so through the HA and MRHA tunnel in both directions.  Since the
   use of this tunnel may have significant drawbacks [8], RO techniques
   that allow a more direct path between the CN and MR to be used are
   highly desirable.

   For decades, mobile networks of some form have been used for
   communications with people and avionics equipment onboard aircraft
   and spacecraft.  These have not typically used IP, although
   architectures are being devised and deployed based on IP in both the
   aeronautics and space exploration communities (see Appendix A and
   Appendix B for more information).  An aircraft or spacecraft
   generally contains many computing nodes, sensors, and other devices
   that are possible to address individually with IPv6.  This is
   desirable to support network-centric operations concepts.  Given that
   a craft has only a small number of access links, it is very natural
   to use NEMO MRs to localize the functions needed to manage the large
   onboard network's reachability over the few dynamic access links.  On
   an aircraft, the nodes are arranged in multiple independent networks,
   based on their functions.  These multiple networks are required for
   regulatory reasons to have different treatments of their air-ground
   traffic, and often must use distinct air-ground links and service
   providers.

   For aeronautics, the main disadvantage of using NEMO bidirectional
   tunnels is that airlines operate flights that traverse multiple
   continents, and a single plane may fly around the entire world over a
   span of a couple days.  If a plane uses a static HA on a single
   continent, then for a large percentage of the time when the plane is
   not on the same continent as the HA, a great amount of delay is
   imposed by using the MRHA tunnel.  Avoiding the delay from
   unnecessarily forcing packets across multiple continents is the



Eddy, et al.             Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft     Aero and Space NEMO RO Requirements     February 2008


   primary goal of pursuing NEMO RO for aeronautics.

   Many other properties of the aeronautics and space environments
   amplify the known issues with NEMO bidirectional MRHA tunnels [8]
   even further.

      Longer routes leading to increased delay and additional
      infrastructure load - In aeronautical networks (e.g. using Plain
      Old Aircraft Communication Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS)
      or ACARS over VHF Data Link (VDL) mode 2 ) the queueing delays are
      often long due to ARQ mechanisms and underprovisioned radio links.
      Furthermore, for aeronautical communications systems that pass
      through geosynchronous satellites, and for space exploration, the
      propagation delays are also long.  These delays combined with the
      additional need to cross continents in order to transport packets
      between ground stations and CNs means that delays are already
      quite high in aeronautical and space networks without the addition
      of an MRHA tunnel.  The increased delays caused by MRHA tunnels
      may be unacceptable in meeting Required Communication Performance
      [9].

      Increased packet overhead - Given the constrained link bandwidths
      available in even future communications systems for aeronautics
      and space exploration, planners are extremely adverse to header
      overhead.  Since any amount of available link capacity can be
      utilized for extra situational awareness, science data, etc.,
      every byte of header/tunnel overhead displaces a byte of useful
      data.

      Increased chances of packet fragmentation - Packet fragmentation
      exacerbates the issue with header overhead and adds to
      unreliability and possibly the need for end-to-end retransmission
      if fragments are lost.  Since error-prone radio links are
      sometimes used in the aeronautical and space environments, loss of
      fragments resulting in loss of entire packets is possible.  The
      odds of packets requiring fragmentation must be minimized in
      aeronautical and space networks.

      Increased susceptibility to failure - The additional likelihood of
      either a single link failure disrupting all communications or an
      HA failure disrupting all communications is problematic when using
      MRHA tunnels for command and control applications that require
      high availability for safety-of-life or safety-of-mission.

   For these reasons, an RO extension to NEMO is highly desirable for
   use in aeronautical and space networking.  In fact, a standard RO
   mechanism may even be necessary before some planners will seriously
   consider advancing use of the NEMO technology from experimental



Eddy, et al.             Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft     Aero and Space NEMO RO Requirements     February 2008


   demonstrations to operational use within their communications
   architectures.  Without an RO solution, NEMO is difficult to justify
   for realistic operational consideration.

   In Section 2 we describe the relevent high-level features of the
   access and onboard networks envisioned for use in aeronautics and
   space exploration, as they influence the properties of usable NEMO RO
   solutions.  Section 3 then lists the technical and functional
   characteristics that are absolutely required of a NEMO RO solution
   for these environments, while Section 4 lists some additional
   characteristics that are desired, but not necessarily required.  In
   Appendix A and Appendix B we provide brief primers on the specific
   operational concepts used in aeronautics and space exploration
   respectively for IP-based network architectures.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.  Although
   this document does not specify an actual protocol, but rather just
   the requirements for a protocol, it still uses the RFC 2119 language
   to make the requirements clear.


2.  NEMO RO Scenarios

   To motivate and drive the development of the requirements and
   desirable features for NEMO RO solutions, in this section some
   operational characteristics are described to explain how access
   networks, HAs, and CNs are configured and distributed geographically
   and topologically in aeronautical and space network architectures.
   This may be useful in determining which classes of RO techniques
   within the known solution space [10] are feasible.

2.1.  Aeronautical Communications Scenarios

   Since aircraft may be simultaneously connected to multiple ground
   access networks using diverse technologies with different coverage
   properties, it is difficult to say much in general about the rate of
   changes in active access links and care-of addresses (CoAs).  As one
   data point, for using VDL mode 2 data links, the length of time spent
   on a single access channel varies depending on the stage of flight.
   On the airport surface, VDL mode 2 access is stable while a plane is
   unloaded, loaded, refueled, etc., but other wired and wireless LAN
   links (e.g. the Gatelink system) may come and go.  Immediately after
   takeoff and before landing, planes are in the terminal maneuvering
   area for approximately 10 minutes and stably use another VDL mode 2
   channel.  During en-route flight, handovers between VDL mode 2
   channels may occur every 30 to 60 minutes, depending on the exact



Eddy, et al.             Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft     Aero and Space NEMO RO Requirements     February 2008


   flight plan and layout of towers, cells, and sectors used by a
   service provider.  These handovers may result in having a different
   access router and a change in CoA, though the use of local mobility
   management (e.g. [11]) may limit the changes in CoA to only handovers
   between different providers or types of data links.

   The characteristics of a data flow between a CN and MNN varies both
   depending on the data flow's domain, and the particular application
   within the domain.  Even within the three aeronautical domains
   described below, there are varying classes of service that are
   regulated differently (e.g. for emergencies versus nominal
   operations), but this level of detail has been abstracted out for the
   purposes of this document.  It is assumed that any viable NEMO RO
   solution will be able to support a granularity of configuration with
   many sub-classes of traffic within each of the specific domains
   listed here.

2.1.1.  Air Traffic Services Domain

   The MNNs involved in Air Traffic Services (ATS) consist of pieces of
   avoinics hardware onboard an aircraft used to provide navigation,
   control, and situational awareness.  The applications run by these
   MNNs are mostly critical to the safety of the lives of the passengers
   and crew.  The MNN equipment may consist of a range of devices from
   typical laptop computers to very specialized avionics devices.  These
   MNNs will mostly be Local Fixed Nodes (LFNs), with a few Local Mobile
   Nodes (LMNs) to support Electronic Flight Bags, for instance.  It can
   be assumed that Visiting Mobile Nodes (VMNs) are never used within
   the ATS domain.

   An MR used for ATS will be capable of using multiple data links (at
   least VHF-based, satellite, HF-based, and wired), and will likely be
   supported by a backup unit in the case of failure, leading to a case
   of a multi-homed MR that is at least multi-interfaced and possibly
   multi-prefixed as well, in NEMO terminology.

   Since for ATS, the MRs and MNNs are under regulatory control and are
   actively tested and maintained, it is not unreasonable to assume that
   special patches or software be running on these devices to enable
   NEMO RO.  In fact, since these devices are accessed by skilled
   technicians and professionals, it may be acceptable even if complex
   configuration is required for NEMO RO.  Of course simplicity in setup
   and configuration is desirable, however.

   Data flows from the ATS domain may be assumed to consist mainly of
   short transactional exchanges such as clearance requests and grants.
   Future ATS communications are likely to include longer messages and
   higher message frequencies for positional awareness and trajectory



Eddy, et al.             Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft     Aero and Space NEMO RO Requirements     February 2008


   intent of all vehicles in motion at the airport and all aircraft
   within a thirty mile range during flight.  Many of these may be
   aircraft-to-aircraft, but the majority of current exchanges are
   between the MNNs and a very small set of CNs within a control
   facility at any time due to the full transfer of control as a plane
   moves across sectors of airspace.  The set of CNs may be assumed to
   all share the same network prefix.  These CNs are also involved in
   other data flows over the same access network that the MR is attached
   to, managing other flights within the sector.  These CNs are often
   geographically and topologically much closer to the MR in comparison
   to a single fixed HA.

2.1.2.  Airline Operational Services Domain

   Data flows for Airline Operational Services (AOS) are not critical to
   the safety of the passengers or aircraft, but are needed for the
   business operations of airlines operating flights, and may affect the
   profitability of an airline's flights.  Most of these data flows are
   sourced by MNNs that are part of the flight management system or
   sensor nodes on an aircraft, and are terminated at CNs located near
   an airline's headquarters or operations center.  AOS traffic may
   include detailed electronic passenger manifests, passenger ticketing
   and rebooking traffic, and complete electronic baggage manifests.
   When suitable bandwidth is available (currently on the surface when
   connected to a wired Gatelink system), "airplane health information"
   data transfers of between 10 and several-hundred megabytes of data
   are likely, and in the future, it is expected that the In-Flight
   Entertainment (IFE) systems may receive movie refreshes of data (e.g.
   television programming or recent news updates) running into the
   multi-gigabyte range.

   Currently, these flows are often short messages that record the
   timing of events of a flight, engine performance data, etc., but may
   be longer flows that upload weather or other supplementary data to an
   aircraft.  In addition, email-like interactive messaging may be used
   at any time during a flight.  For instance, messages can be exchanged
   before landing to arrange for arrival-gate services to be available
   for handicapped passengers, refueling, food and beverage stocking,
   and other needs.  This messaging is not limited to landing
   preparation, though, and may occur at any stage of flight.

   The equipment comprising these MNNs and CNs has similar
   considerations to the equipment used for the ATS domain.  A key
   difference between ATS and AOS is that AOS data flows are routed to
   CNs that may be much more geographically remote to the aircraft than
   CNs used by ATS flows, as AOS CNs will probably be located at an
   airline's corporate data center or headquarters.  The AOS CNs will
   also probably be static for the lifetime of the flight, rather than



Eddy, et al.             Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft     Aero and Space NEMO RO Requirements     February 2008


   dynamic like the ATS CNs.  An HA used for AOS may be fairly close
   topologically to the CNs, and RO may not be as big of a benefit for
   AOS, since simple event logging is more typical than time-critical
   interactive messaging.  For the small number of messaging flows,
   however, the CNs are geographically (but not necessarily
   topologically) very close to the aircraft, though this depends on how
   applications are written; whether they use centralized servers or
   exchange messages directly.  Additionally, since AOS communication is
   more advisory in nature than ATS, rather than safety-critical, AOS
   flows are less sensitive to tunnel inefficiencies than ATS flows.
   For these reasons, in this document, we consider AOS data flow
   concerns with RO mechanisms to not be full requirements, but instead
   consider them under the desirable properties in Section 4.

2.1.3.  Passenger Services Domain

   The MNNs involved in the Passenger Information and Entertainment
   Services (PIES) domain are mostly beyond the direct control of any
   single authority.  The majority of these MNNs are VMNs and personal
   property brought onboard by passengers for the duration of a flight,
   and thus it is unreasonable to assume that they be preloaded with
   special software or operating systems.  These MNNs run stock Internet
   applications like web browsing, email, and file transfer, often
   through VPN tunnels.  The MNNs themselves are portable electronics
   such as laptop computers and mobile smartphones capable of connecting
   to an onboard wireless access network (e.g. using 802.11).  To these
   MNN devices and users, connecting to the onboard network is identical
   to connecting to any other terrestrial "hotspot" or typical wireless
   LAN.  The MNNs are completely oblivious to the fact that this access
   network is on an airplane and possibly moving around the globe.  The
   users are not always technically-proficient and may not be capable of
   performing any special configuration of their MNNs or applications.

   A small number of PIES MNNs may be LFNs that store and distribute
   cached media content (e.g. movies and music), or may provide gaming
   services to passengers.  Due to the great size of the data stored on
   these LFNs compared to the anemic bandwidth available air-to-ground,
   these LFNs will probably not attempt to communicate off-board at all
   during the course of a flight, but will wait to update their content
   via either high-speed links are available on the ground, or via
   removable media inserted by the flight crew.  However, if a higher
   bandwidth link were affordably available, it might be used in-flight
   for these purposes, but supporting this is not a requirement.  Data
   flows needed for billing passengers for access to content are
   relatively low bandwidth and are currently done in-flight.  The
   requirements of these data flows are less stringent than those of
   ATC, however, so they are not specifically considered here.




Eddy, et al.             Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft     Aero and Space NEMO RO Requirements     February 2008


   The PIES domain is not critical to safety-of-life, but is merely an
   added comfort or business service to passengers.  Since PIES
   applications may consume much more bandwidth than the available links
   used in other domains, the PIES MNNs may have their packets routed
   through a separate high-bandwidth link, that is not used by the ATS
   data flows.  For instance, several service providers are planning to
   offer passenger Internet access during flight at DSL-like rates, just
   as the Connexion by Boeing system did.  Several airlines also plan to
   offer onboard cellular service to their passengers, possibly
   utilizing Voice-over-IP for transport.  Due to the lack of
   criticality and the likelihood of being treated independently, in
   this document, PIES MNN concerns are not considered as input to
   requirements in Section 3.  The RO solution should be optimized for
   ATS and AOS needs, and consider PIES as a secondary concern.

   With this in consideration, the PIES domain is also the most likely
   to utilize NEMO for communications in the near-term since
   relatatively little regulations and beaurocracy are involved in
   deploying new technology in this domain, and IP-based PIES systems
   have previously been developed and deployed (although not using NEMO)
   [12].  For these reasons, PIES concerns factor heavily into the
   desirable properties in Section 4 outside of the mandatory
   requirements.

   Some PIES nodes are currently using 2.5G/3G links for mobile data
   services, and these may be able to migrate to an IP-based onboard
   mobile network, when available.

2.2.  Space Exploration Scenarios

   This section describes some features of the network environments
   found in space exploration that are relevent to selecting an
   appropriate NEMO RO mechanism.  It should be noted that IPv4-based
   mobile routing has been demonstrated onboard the UK-DMC satellite and
   that the documentation on this serves as a useful reference for
   understanding some of the goals and configuration issues for certain
   types of space use of NEMO [13].  This section assumes space use of
   NEMO within the "near-Earth" range of space (i.e. not for
   communications between the Earth and Mars, or other "deep-space"
   locations).  Note, that NEMO is currently being considered for use
   out to Lunar distances.  No strong distinction is made here between
   civilian versus military use, or exploration mission versus Earth-
   observing or other mission types; our focus is on civilian
   exploration missions, but we believe that many of the same basic
   concerns are relevent to these other mission types.

   In space communications, a high degree of bandwidth asymmetry is
   often present, with the uplink from the ground to a craft typically



Eddy, et al.             Expires August 28, 2008                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft     Aero and Space NEMO RO Requirements     February 2008


   being multiple orders of magnitude slower than the downlink from the
   craft to the ground.  This means that the RO overhead may be
   negligible on the downlink but significant for the uplink.  An RO
   scheme that minimizes the amount of signaling from CNs to an MN is
   desirable, since these uplinks may be low-bandwidth to begin with
   (possibly only several kilobits per second).  Since the uplink is
   used for sending commands, it should not be blocked for long periods
   while serializing long RO signaling packets; any RO signaling from
   the CN to MNNs must not involve large packets.

   For unmanned space flight, the MNNs onboard a spacecraft consist
   almost entirely of LFN sensing devices and processing devices that
   send telemetry and science data to CNs on the ground and actuator
   devices that are commanded from the ground in order to control the
   craft.  Robotic lunar rovers may serve as VMNs behind an MR located
   on a lander or orbiter, but these rovers will contain many
   independent instruments and could probably configured as an MR and
   LFNs instead of using a single VMN address.

   It can be assumed that for manned spaceflight, at least, multiple MRs
   will be present and on-line simultaneously for fast failover.  These
   will usually be multihomed over space links in diverse frequency
   bands, and so multiple access network prefixes can be expected to be
   in use simultaneously, especially since some links will be direct to
   ground stations while others may be bent-pipe repeated through
   satellite relays like TDRSS.  This conforms to the (n,1,1) or (n,n,1)
   NEMO multihoming scenarios [14].  For unmanned missions, if low
   weight and power are more critical, it is likely that only a single
   MR and single link/prefix may be present, conforming to the (1,1,1)
   or (1,n,1) NEMO multihoming scenarios [14].

   In some modes of spacecraft operation, all communications may go
   through a single onboard computer (or a Command and Data Handling
   system as on the International Space Station) rather than directly to
   the MNNs themselves, so there is only ever one MNN behind an MR that
   is in direct contact with off-board CNs.  In this case removing the
   MR and using simple host-based Mobile IPv6 rather than NEMO is
   possible, but an MR is more desirable because it could be part of a
   modular communications adapter that is used in multiple diverse
   missions to bridge on-board buses and intelligently manage space
   links, rather than re-creating these capabilities per-mission if
   using simple Mobile IPv6 with a single Command and Data Handling node
   that varies widely between spacecraft.  Also, all visions for the
   future involve network-centric operations where the direct
   addressability and accessibility of end devices and data is crucial.
   As network-centric operations become more prevalent, application of
   NEMO is likely to be needed to increase the flexibility of data flow.




Eddy, et al.             Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft     Aero and Space NEMO RO Requirements     February 2008


   The MRs and MNNs onboard a spacecraft are highly-customized computing
   platforms, and adding custom code or complex configurations in order
   to obtain NEMO RO capabilities is feasible, although it should not be
   assumed that any amount of code or configuration maintenance is
   possible after launch.  The RO scheme as it is initially configured
   should continue to function throughout the lifetime of an asset.

   For manned space flight, additional MNNs on spacesuits and astronauts
   may be present and used for applications like two-way voice
   conversation or video-downlink.  These MNNs could be reusable and
   reconfigured per-flight for different craft or mission network
   designs, but it is still desirable for them to be able to
   autoconfigure themselves and they may move between nested or non-
   nested MRs during a mission.  For instance, if astonauts move between
   two docked spacecraft, each craft may have its own local MR and
   wireless coverage that the suit MNNs will have to reconfigure for.
   It is desirable if a RO solution can respond appropriately to this
   change in locality, and not cause high levels of packet loss during
   the transitional period.  It is also likely that these MNNs will be
   part of Personal Area Networks (PANs), and so may appear either
   directly as MNNs behind the main MR onboard, or might have their own
   MR within the PAN and thus create a nested (or even multi-level
   nested) NEMO configuration.


3.  Required Characteristics

   This section lists requirements that specify the absolute minimal
   technical and/or functional properties that a NEMO RO mechanism must
   possess to be usable for aeronautical and space communications.

   In the recent work done by the International Civial Aviation
   Organization (ICAO) to identify viable mobility technologies for
   providing IP services to aircraft, a set of technical criteria was
   developed [7] [15].  The nine required characteristics listed in this
   document can be seen as directly descended from these ICAO criteria,
   except here we have made them much more specific and focused for the
   NEMO technology and the problem of RO within NEMO.  The original ICAO
   criteria were more general and used for comparing the features of
   different mobility solutions (e.g. mobility techniques based on
   routing protocols versus transport protocols versus Mobile IP, etc.).
   Within the text describing each requirement in this section, we
   provide the high-level ICAO criteria from which it evolved.

   These requirements for aeronautics are generally similar to or in
   excess of the requirements for space exploration, so we do not add
   any additional requirements specifically for space exploration.  In
   addition, the lack of a standards body regulating performance and



Eddy, et al.             Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft     Aero and Space NEMO RO Requirements     February 2008


   safety requirements for space exploration means that the requirements
   for aviation are much easier to agree upon and base within existing
   requirements frameworks.  After consideration, we believe that the
   set of aviation-based requirements outlined here also fully suffices
   for space exploration.

3.1.  Req1 - Separability

   Since RO may be inappropriate for some flows, an RO scheme MUST
   support configuration by a per-domain dynamic RO policy database.
   Entries in this database can be similar to those used in IPsec
   security policy databases in order to specify either bypassing or
   utilizing RO for specific flows.

3.1.1.  Rationale for Aeronautics - Separability

   Even if RO is available to increase the performance of a mobile
   network's traffic, it may not be appropriate for all flows.

   There may also be a desire to push certain flows through the MRHA
   path rather than perform RO to enable them to be easily recorded by a
   central service.

   For these reasons, an RO scheme must have the ability to be bypassed
   by applications that desire to use bidirectional tunnels through an
   HA.  This desire could be expressed through a policy database similar
   to the Security Policy Database used by IPsec, for instance, but the
   specific means of signaling or configuring the expression of this
   desire by applications is left as a detail for the specific RO
   specifications.

   In addition, it is expected that the use of NEMO technology is
   decided on a per-domain basis, so that it is possible that for some
   domains, separate MRs are used, or even non-NEMO mobility techniques.
   This requirement for an RO policy database only applies to domains
   that utilize NEMO.

   This requirement was derived from ICAO's TC-1 - "The approach should
   provide a means to define data communications that can be carried
   only over authorized paths for the traffic type and category
   specified by the user."

3.2.  Req2 - Multihoming

   An RO solution MUST support an MR having multiple interfaces, and
   MUST allow a given domain to be bound to a specific interface.  It
   MUST be possible to use different MNPs for different domains.




Eddy, et al.             Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft     Aero and Space NEMO RO Requirements     February 2008


3.2.1.  Rationale for Aeronautics - Multihoming

   Multiple factors drive a requirement for multihoming capabilities.
   For ATS safety-of-life critical traffic, the need for high
   availability suggests a basic multihoming requirement.  The
   regulatory and operational difficulty in deploying new systems and
   transitioning away from old ones also implies that a mix of access
   technologies may be in use at any given time, and may require
   simultaneous use.  Another factor is that the multiple domains of
   applications onboard may actually be restricted in what data links
   they are allowed to use based on regulations and policy, so at
   certain times or locations, PIES data flows may have to use distinct
   access links from those used by ATS data flows.

   This drives the requirement that an RO solution MUST allow for an MR
   to be connected to multiple access networks simultaneously and have
   multiple CoAs in use simultaneously.  The selection of a proper CoA
   and access link to use per-packet may be either within or outside the
   scope of the RO solution.  As a minimum, if an RO solution is
   integrable with the MONAMI6 basic extensions (i.e. registration of
   multiple CoAs and flow bindings), and does not preclude their use,
   then this requirement can be considered to be satisfied.

   It is not this requirement's intention that an RO scheme itself
   provide multihoming, but rather simply to exclude RO techniques whose
   use is not possible in multihomed scenarios.

   In terms of NEMO multihoming scenarios [14], it MUST be possible to
   support at least the (n,1,n) and (n,n,n) scenarios.

   This requirement was derived from ICAO's TC-2 - "The approach should
   enable an aircraft to both roam between and to be simultaneously
   connected to multiple independent air-ground networks."

3.3.  Req3 - Latency

   While an RO solution is in the process of setting up or
   reconfiguring, packets of specified flows MUST be capable of using
   the MRHA tunnel.

3.3.1.  Rationale for Aeronautics - Latency

   It is possible that an RO scheme may take longer to setup or involve
   more signaling than the basic NEMO MRHA tunnel maintenance that
   occurs during an update to the MR's active CoAs when the set of
   usable access links changes.  During this period of flux, it may be
   important for applications to be able to immediately get packets onto
   the ground network, especially considering that connectivity may have



Eddy, et al.             Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 13]


Internet-Draft     Aero and Space NEMO RO Requirements     February 2008


   been blocked for some period of time while link-layer and NEMO
   proceedures for dealing with the transition occurred.  Also, when an
   application starts for the first time, the RO scheme may not have
   previous knowledge related to the CN and may need to perform some
   setup before an optimized path is available.  If the RO scheme blocks
   packets either through queueing or dropping while it is configuring
   itself, this could result in unacceptable delays.

   Thus, when transitions in the MR's set of active access links occurs,
   the RO scheme MUST NOT block packets from using the MRHA tunnel if
   the RO scheme requires more time to setup or configure itself than
   the basic NEMO tunnel maintenance.  Additionally, when an application
   flow is started, the RO scheme MUST allow packets to immediately be
   sent, perhaps without the full benefit of RO, if the RO scheme
   requires additional time to configure a more optimal path to the CN.

   This requirement was derived from ICAO's TC-3 - "The approach should
   minimize latency during establishment of initial paths to an
   aircraft, during handoff, and during transfer of individual data
   packets."

3.4.  Req4 - Availability

   An RO solution MUST be compatible with network redundancy mechanisms
   and MUST NOT prevent fall-back to the MRHA tunnel if an element in an
   optimized path fails.

   An RO mechanism MUST NOT add any new single point of failure for
   communications in general.

3.4.1.  Rationale for Aeronautics - Availability

   A need for high availability of connectivity to ground networks
   arises from the use of IP networking for carrying safety-of-life
   critical traffic.  For this reason, single points of failure need to
   be avoided.  If an RO solution assumes either a single MR onboard, a
   single HA, or some similar vulnerable point, and is not usable when
   the network includes standard reliability mechanisms for routers,
   then the RO technique will not be acceptable.  An RO solution also
   MUST NOT itself imply a single point of failure.

   If a failure occurs in a path selected by an RO technique, then that
   RO technique MUST NOT prevent fallback to the MRHA path for affected
   traffic.

   This does not mention specific redundancy mechanisms for MRs, HAs, or
   other networking elements, so as long as some reasonable method for
   making each component redundant fits within the assumptions of the RO



Eddy, et al.             Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 14]


Internet-Draft     Aero and Space NEMO RO Requirements     February 2008


   mechanism, this requirement can be considered satisfied.

   There is no intention to support "Internet-less" operation through
   this requirement.  When an MR is completely disconnected from the
   majority of the network it is intended to communicate, including its
   HA, there is no requirement for it to be able to retain any
   communications involving parties outside the mobile networks managed
   by itself.

   This requirement was derived from ICAO's TC-4 - "The approach should
   have high availability which includes not having a single point of
   failure."

3.5.  Req5 - Packet Loss

   An RO scheme MUST NOT cause either loss or duplication of data
   packets during RO path establishment, usage, or transition, above
   that caused in the NEMO basic support case.

3.5.1.  Rationale for Aeronautics - Packet Loss

   It is possible that some RO schemes could cause data packets to be
   lost during transitions in RO state or due to unforseen packet
   filters along the RO-selected path.  This could be difficult for an
   application to detect and respond to in time.  For this reason, an RO
   scheme MUST NOT cause packets to be dropped at any point in
   operation, when they would not normally have been dropped in a non-RO
   configuration.

   As an attempt at optimizing against packet loss, some techniques may
   for some time duplicate packets sent over both the MRHA tunnel and
   the optimized path.  If this results in duplicate packets being
   delivered to the application, this is also unacceptable

   This requirement does not necessarily imply make-before-break in
   transitioning between links.  The intention is that during the
   handoff period, the RO scheme itself should not produce losses (or
   duplicates) that would not have occurred if RO had been disabled.

   This requirement was derived from ICAO's TC-5 - "The approach should
   not negatively impact end-to-end data integrity, for example, by
   introducing packet loss during path establishment, handoff, or data
   transfer."

   It is understood that this may be a requirement that is not easily
   implementable with regards to RO.  Furthermore Req1, Separability,
   may be sufficient in allowing loss-sensitive and duplicate-sensitive
   flows to take the MRHA path.



Eddy, et al.             Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 15]


Internet-Draft     Aero and Space NEMO RO Requirements     February 2008


3.6.  Req6 - Scalability

   An RO scheme MUST be simultaneously usable by ten thousand craft
   without overloading the ground network or routing system.  This
   explicitly forbids injection of BGP routes into the global Internet
   for purposes of RO.

3.6.1.  Rationale for Aeronautics - Scalability

   Several thousand aircraft may be in operation at some time, each with
   perhaps several hundred MNNs onboard.  The number of active
   spacecraft using IP will be multiple orders of magnitude smaller than
   this over at least the next decade, so the aeronautical needs are
   more stringent in terms of scalability to large numbers of MRs.  It
   would be a non-starter if the combined use of an RO technique by all
   of the MRs in the network caused ground networks provisioned within
   the realm of typical long-haul private telecommunications networks
   (like the FAA's Telecommunications Infrastructure (FTI) or NASA's
   NISN) to be overloaded or melt-down under the RO signaling load or
   amount of rapid path changes for multiple data flows.

   Thus, an RO scheme MUST be simultaneously usable by ten thousand
   nodes without overloading the ground network or routing system.

   Since at least one traffic domain (PIES) requires connectivity to the
   Internet, and it is possible that the Internet would provide
   transport for other domains at some distant point in the future, this
   requirement explicitly forbids the use of techniques that are known
   to scale poorly in terms of their global effects, like BGP, for the
   purposes of RO.

   This requirement was derived from ICAO's TC-6 - "The approach should
   be scaleable to accomodate anticipated levels of aircraft equipage."

3.7.  Req7 - Efficient Signaling

   An RO scheme MUST be capable of efficient signaling in terms of both
   size and number of individual signaling messages and the ensemble of
   signaling messages that may simultaneously be triggered by concurrent
   flows.

3.7.1.  Rationale for Aeronautics - Efficient Signaling

   The amount of bandwidth available for aeronautical and space
   communications has historically been quite small in comparison to the
   desired bandwidth (e.g. in the case of VDL links the bandwidth is 8
   kbps of shared resources).  This situation is expected to persist for
   at least several more years.  Links tend to be provisioned based on



Eddy, et al.             Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 16]


Internet-Draft     Aero and Space NEMO RO Requirements     February 2008


   estimates of application needs (which could well prove wrong if
   either demand or the applications in-use themselves do not follow
   expectations), and do not leave much room for additional networking
   protocol overhead.  Since every byte of available air-ground link
   capacity that is used by signaling for NEMO RO is likely to delay
   bytes of application data and reduce application throughput, it is
   important that the NEMO RO scheme's signaling overhead scales up much
   more slowly than the throughput of the flows RO is being performed
   on.  This way as higher-rate datalinks are deployed along with more
   bandwidth-hungry applications, the NEMO RO scheme will be able to
   safely be discounted in capacity planning.

   Note that in meeting this requirement, an RO technique must be
   efficient in both the size and number of individual messages that it
   sends, as well as the ensemble of messages sent at one time (for
   instance, to give RO to multiple ongoing flows following a handover)
   in order to prevent storms of packets related to RO.

   This requirement was derived from ICAO's TC-7 - "The approach should
   result in throughput which accommodates anticipated levels of
   aircraft equipage."

3.8.  Req8 - Security

   For the ATS/AOS domains, there are three security sub-requirements:

   * The RO scheme MUST NOT further expose MNPs on the wireless link
   than already is the case for NEMO basic support.

   * The RO scheme MUST permit the receiver of a BU to validate the CoAs
   claimed by an MR.

   * The RO scheme MUST ensure that only explicitly authorized MRs are
   able to perform a binding update for a specific MNP.

   For the PIES domain, there are no additional requirements beyond
   those of normal Internet services and the same requirements for
   normal Mobile IPv6 RO apply.

3.8.1.  Rationale for Aeronatics - Security

   The security needs are fairly similar between ATS and AOS, but vary
   widely between the ATS/AOS domains and PIES.  For PIES, the traffic
   flows are typical of terrestrial Internet use and the security
   requirements for RO are identical to those of conventional Mobile
   IPv6 RO.  For ATS/AOS, however, there are somewhat more strict
   requirements, along with some safe assumptions that designers of RO
   schemes can make.  Below, we describe each of these ATS/AOS issues,



Eddy, et al.             Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 17]


Internet-Draft     Aero and Space NEMO RO Requirements     February 2008


   but do not further discuss PIES RO security.

   The first security requirement is driven by concerns expressed by ATS
   communications engineers.  The concern is with the air-ground links
   to a craft, and their current lack of security.  If an RO scheme
   exposes the MNP to eavesdroppers on these links, it may enable
   attackers to easily send packets towards onboard networks of crafts.
   The RO scheme should use some reasonable form of encryption (e.g.
   standard ESP transforms) in order to protect any new RO signalling
   data that contains the MNP.

   To protect bindings to bogus CoAs from being sent, the RO scheme must
   somehow validate that an MR actually possesses any CoAs that it
   claims.  In typical Mobile IPv6 RO, the return routability test
   provides a form of validation, under certain assumptions.  For the
   purposes of aeronautics, when designing a technique for an MR to
   demonstrate ownership of some CoA, it is safe to assume ingress
   filtering on the part of the access network providers, in conjunction
   with the ability to correlate a BU's source address and the decrypted
   alternate CoA at the end recipient of the BU.  (Note: this is
   particularly subject to MEXT discussion)

   To protect against "rouge" MRs or abuse of compromised MRs, the RO
   scheme MUST be capable of checking that an MR is actually authorized
   to perform a binding update for a specific MNP.  To meet this
   requirement, it can be assumed that some aeronautical organization
   authority exists who can provide the required authorization, possibly
   in the form of a certificate that the MR possesses, signed by the
   aeronautical authority.

   It is also reasonable to assume trust relationshiops between each MR
   and a number of mobility anchor points topologically near to its CNs
   (these anchor points may be owned by the service providers), but it
   is not reasonable to assume that trust relationships can be
   established between an MR and any given CN itself.

   This requirement was extrapolated from ICAO's TC-8 - "The approach
   should be secure.", and made more specific with help from the MEXT
   working group.

3.9.  Req9 - Adaptability

   Applications using new transport protocols, IPsec, or new IP options
   MUST be possible within an RO scheme.







Eddy, et al.             Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 18]


Internet-Draft     Aero and Space NEMO RO Requirements     February 2008


3.9.1.  Rationale for Aeronatics - Adaptability

   The concepts of operations are not fully developed for network-
   centric command and control and other uses of IP-based networks in
   aeronautical and space environments.  The exact application
   protocols, data flow characteristics, and even transport protocols
   that will be used in either transitional and final operational
   concepts are not completely defined yet, and may even change with
   deployment experience.  If the RO solution assumes that some amount
   of preconfiguration of flow properties (port number ranges, etc.) is
   required, this could make the integration of new applications or
   protocols difficult.  An RO scheme might assume this in order to
   classify between flows that prefer the MRHA tunnel to an optimized
   path per requirement Req1, for instance, among other reasons.  Since
   flag days or other such large-scale synchronized configuration
   updates are to be avoided to ensure high availability, the RO scheme
   MUST NOT fail on the use of unexpected higher layer protocols
   (transport and above).

   Specifically, the use of IPsec by applications MUST be possible.
   Security based on IPsec is widely understood and modules qualified
   for use in aeronautical and space exploration environments are
   currently available off-the-shelf due to the US Department of Defense
   HAIPE work.  Other security frameworks may not be as attractive due
   to a lack of familiarity or available flight-qualified systems.  If
   an RO solution precludes the use of IPsec by applications, this would
   make it undesirable or unusable.

   This drives the requirement that new applications, potentially using
   new transport protocols must be usable within an RO scheme, and MUST
   NOT involve global reconfiguration events for MRs.

   This requirement was derived from ICAO's TC-9 - "The approach should
   be scalable to accomodate anticipated transition to new IP-based
   communication protocols."


4.  Desirable Characteristics

   In this section, we identify some of the properties of the system
   that are not strict requirements due to either being difficult to
   quantify or to being features that are not immediately needed, but
   may provide additional benefits that would help encourage adoption.

4.1.  Des1 - Configuration

   For ATS systems, complex configurations are known to increase
   uncertainty in context, human error and the potential for undesirable



Eddy, et al.             Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 19]


Internet-Draft     Aero and Space NEMO RO Requirements     February 2008


   (unsafe) states to be reached [16].  Since RO alters the
   communications context between an MNN and CN, it is desirable that a
   NEMO RO solution be as simple to configure as possible and also easy
   to automatically disable if an undesirable state is reached.

   For CNs at large airports, the Binding Cache state management
   functions may be simultaneously dealing with hundreds of airplanes
   with multiple service providers, and a volume of mobility events due
   to arrivals and departures.  The ability to have simple interfaces
   for humans to access the Binding Cache configuration and alter it in
   case of errors are desirable, if this does not interfere with the RO
   protocol mechanisms themselves.

4.2.  Des2 - Nesting

   It is desirable if the RO mechanism supports RO for nested MRs, since
   it is possible that for PIES and astronaut spacesuits, that PANs with
   MRs will need to be supported.  For oceanic flight, ATS and AOS may
   also benefit from the capability of nesting MRs between multiple
   planes to provide a "reachback" to terrestrial groundstations rather
   than relying solely on lower rate HF or satellite systems.  In either
   case, this mode of operation is beyond current strict requirements
   and is merely desirable.  It is also noted that there are other ways
   to support these communications scenarios using routing protocols or
   other means outside of NEMO.

4.3.  Des3 - System Impact

   Low complexity in systems engineering and configuration management is
   desirable in building and maintaining systems using the RO mechanism.
   This property may be difficult to quantify, judge, and compare
   between different RO techniques, but a mechanism that is perceived to
   have lower impact on the complexity of the network communications
   system should be favored over an otherwise equivalent mechanism (with
   regards to the requirements listed above).  This is somewhat
   different than Des1 (Configuration), in that Des1 refers to operation
   and maintenance of the system once deployed, whereas Des3 is
   concerned with the initial design, deployment, transition, and later
   upgrade path of the system.

4.4.  Des4 - VMN Support

   At least LFNs MUST be supported by a viable RO solution for
   aeronautics, as these local nodes are within the ATS and AOS domains.
   If Mobile IPv6 becomes a popular technology used by portable consumer
   devices, VMNs within the PIES domain are expected to be numerous, and
   it is strongly desirable for them to be supported by the RO
   technique, but not strictly required.  LMNs are potentially present



Eddy, et al.             Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 20]


Internet-Draft     Aero and Space NEMO RO Requirements     February 2008


   in future space exploration scenarios, such as Moon and Mars manned
   exploration missions.

4.5.  Des5 - Generality

   An RO mechanism that is "general purpose", in that it is also readily
   usable in other contexts outside of aeronautics and space
   exploration, is desirable.  For instance, a RO solution that is
   usable within VANETs [17] or consumer electronics equipment [18]
   could satisfy this.  The goal is for the technology to be more
   widely-used and maintained outside the relatively-small aeronautical
   networking community and its vendors, in order to make acquisitions
   and training faster, easier, and cheaper.  This could also allow
   aeronautical networking to possibly benefit from future RO scheme
   optimizations and developments whose research and development is
   funded and performed externally by the broader industry and academic
   communities.


5.  Security Considerations

   This document does not create any security concerns in and of itself.
   The security properties of any NEMO RO scheme that is to be used in
   aeronautics and space exploration are probably much more stringent
   than for more general NEMO use, due to the safety-of-life and/or
   national security issues involved.  The required security properties
   are described under Req8 of Section 3 within this document.

   Under an assumption of closed and secure backbone networks, the air-
   ground link is the weakest portion of the network, and most
   suseceptible to injection of packets, flooding, and other attacks.
   Future air-ground data links that will use IP are being developed
   with link-layer security as a concern.  This development can assist
   in meeting one of this document's listed security requirements (that
   MNPs not be exposed on the wireless link), but the other requirements
   affect the RO technology more directly without regard to the presence
   or absence of air-ground link-layer security.

   When deploying in operational networks where network layer security
   may be mandated (e.g. virtual private networks), the interaction
   between this and NEMO RO techniques should be carefully considered to
   ensure that the security mechanisms do not undo the route
   optimization by forcing packets through a less-optimal overlay or
   underlay.  For instance, when IPsec tunnel use is required, the
   locations of the tunnel endpoints can force sub-optimal end-to-end
   paths to be taken.





Eddy, et al.             Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 21]


Internet-Draft     Aero and Space NEMO RO Requirements     February 2008


6.  IANA Considerations

   This document neither creates nor updates any IANA registries.


7.  Acknowledgments

   Input from several parties is indirectly included in this document.
   Participants in the MPI mailing list and BoF efforts helped to shape
   the document.  The NEMO and MONAMI6 working group participants were
   instrumental in completing this document.  The participants in the
   MEXT interim meeting February 7th and 8th of 2008 in Madrid were
   critical in solidifying these requirements.  Specific suggestions
   from Steve Bretmersky, Thierry Ernst, Tony Li, Jari Arkko, Phillip
   Watson, Roberto Baldessari, Carlos Jesus Bernardos Cano, Eivan
   Cerasi, Marcelo Bagnulo, Serkan Ayaz, and Christian Bauer were
   incorporated into this document.

   Wesley Eddy's work on this document was performed at NASA's Glenn
   Research Center, while in support of NASA's Advanced Communications
   Navigations and Surveillance Architectures and System Technologies
   (ACAST) project, and the NASA Space Communications Architecture
   Working Group (SCAWG).


8.  Changes from draft-eddy-nemo-aero-reqs-02

   Note, this section will be removed upon publication as an RFC.

      At the IETF70 mext the aeronautics community indicated we would
      change the nemo-aero-req-02 document into a mext document with
      little modification.  This the the corresponding document.

      Any Undefined Acronyms have been defined during first use.


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [1]   Devarapalli, V., Wakikawa, R., Petrescu, A., and P. Thubert,
         "Network Mobility (NEMO) Basic Support Protocol", RFC 3963,
         January 2005.

   [2]   Johnson, D., Perkins, C., and J. Arkko, "Mobility Support in
         IPv6", RFC 3775, June 2004.

   [3]   Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement



Eddy, et al.             Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 22]


Internet-Draft     Aero and Space NEMO RO Requirements     February 2008


         Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

9.2.  Informative References

   [4]   Ernst, T. and H-Y. Lach, "Network Mobility Support
         Terminology", RFC 4885, July 2007.

   [5]   Ernst, T., "Network Mobility Support Goals and Requirements",
         RFC 4886, July 2007.

   [6]   Ivancic, W., "Multi-Domained, Multi-Homed Mobile Networks",
         draft-ivancic-mobile-platforms-problem-00 (work in progress),
         September 2006.

   [7]   Davis, T., "Mobile Internet Platform Aviation Requirements",
         draft-davis-mip-aviationreq-00 (work in progress),
         September 2006.

   [8]   Ng, C., Thubert, P., Watari, M., and F. Zhao, "Network Mobility
         Route Optimization Problem Statement", RFC 4888, July 2007.

   [9]   ICAO Asia/Pacific Regional Office, "Required Communication
         Performance (RCP) Concepts - An Introduction", Informal South
         Pacific ATS Coordinating Group 20th meeting, Agenda Item 7,
         January 2006.

   [10]  Ng, C., Zhao, F., Watari, M., and P. Thubert, "Network Mobility
         Route Optimization Solution Space Analysis", RFC 4889,
         July 2007.

   [11]  Kempf, J., "Goals for Network-Based Localized Mobility
         Management (NETLMM)", RFC 4831, April 2007.

   [12]  Dul, A., "Global IP Network Mobility", presentation at IETF 62
         plenary , March 2005.

   [13]  Ivancic, W., Paulsen, P., Stewart, D., Shell, D., Wood, L.,
         Jackson, C., Hodgson, D., Northam, J., Bean, N., Miller, E.,
         Graves, M., and L. Kurisaki, "Secure, Network-centric
         Operations of a Space-based Asset: Cisco Router in Low Earth
         Orbit (CLEO) and Virtual Mission Operations Center (VMOC)",
         NASA Technical Memorandum TM-2005-213556, May 2005.

   [14]  Ng, C., Ernst, T., Paik, E., and M. Bagnulo, "Analysis of
         Multihoming in Network Mobility Support", RFC 4980,
         October 2007.

   [15]  ICAO WG-N SWG1, "Analysis of Candidate ATN IPS Mobility



Eddy, et al.             Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 23]


Internet-Draft     Aero and Space NEMO RO Requirements     February 2008


         Solutions",  Meeting #12, Working Paper 6, Bangkok, Thailand,
         January 2007.

   [16]  ICAO, "Threat and Error Management (TEM) in Air Traffic
         Control", ICAO Preliminary Edition, October 2005.

   [17]  Baldessari, R., "C2C-C Consortium Requirements for NEMO Route
         Optimization", draft-baldessari-c2ccc-nemo-req-01 (work in
         progress), July 2007.

   [18]  Ng, C., "Consumer Electronics Requirements for Network Mobility
         Route Optimization", draft-ng-nemo-ce-req-00 (work in
         progress), July 2007.

   [19]  CCSDS, "Cislunar Space Internetworking: Architecture", CCCSDS
         000.0-G-1 Draft Green Book, December 2006.

   [20]  NASA Space Communication Architecture Working Group, "NASA
         Space Communication and Navigation Architecture Recommendations
         for 2005-2030", SCAWG Final Report, May 2006.


Appendix A.  Basics of IP-based Aeronautical Networking

   The current standards for aeronautical networking are based on the
   ISO OSI networking stack and are referred to as the Aeronautical
   Telecommunications Network (ATN).  While standardized, the ATN has
   not been fully deployed and seems to be in only limited use compared
   to its full vision and potential.  The International Civil Aviation
   Organization (ICAO) is a part of the United Nations that produces
   standards for aeronautical communications.  The ICAO has recognized
   that an ATN based on OSI lacks the widespread commercial network
   support required for the successful deployment of new more bandwidth-
   intensive ATN applications, and has recently been working towards a
   new IP-based version of the ATN.

   Supporting mobility in an IP-based network may be vastly different
   than it is in the OSI-based ATN which uses the Inter-Domain Routing
   Protocol (IDRP) to recompute routing tables as mobile networks change
   topological points of attachment.  ICAO recognizes this and has
   studied various mobility techniques based on link, network,
   transport, routing, and application protocols [15].

   Work done within ICAO has identified the NEMO technology as a
   promising candidate for use in supporting global IP-based mobile
   networking.  The main concerns with NEMO have been with its current
   lack of route optimization support and its potentially complex
   configuration requirements in a large airport environment with



Eddy, et al.             Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 24]


Internet-Draft     Aero and Space NEMO RO Requirements     February 2008


   multiple service providers and 25 or more airlines sharing the same
   infrastructure.


Appendix B.  Basics of IP-based Space Networking

   IP itself is only in limited operational use for communicating with
   spacecraft currently (e.g. the Surry Satellite Technology Limited
   (SSTL) Disaster Monitoring Constellation (DMC) satellites are one
   example).  Future communications architectures include IP-based
   networking as an essential building-block, however.  The Consultative
   Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) has a working group that is
   producing a network architecture for using IP-based communications in
   both manned and unmanned near-Earth missions, and has international
   participation towards this goal [19].  NASA's Space Communications
   Architecture Working Group (SCAWG) also has developed an IP-based
   multi-mission networking architecture [20].  Neither of these is
   explicitly based on Mobile IP technologies, but NEMO is usable within
   these architectures, and they may be extended to include NEMO when/if
   the need becomes apparent.


Authors' Addresses

   Wesley M. Eddy
   Verizon Federal Network Systems
   NASA Glenn Research Center
   21000 Brookpark Road, MS 54-5
   Cleveland, OH  44135
   USA

   Email: weddy@grc.nasa.gov


   Will Ivancic
   NASA Glenn Research Center
   21000 Brookpark Road, MS 54-5
   Cleveland, OH  44135
   USA

   Phone: +1-216-433-3494
   Email: William.D.Ivancic@grc.nasa.gov









Eddy, et al.             Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 25]


Internet-Draft     Aero and Space NEMO RO Requirements     February 2008


   Terry Davis
   Boeing Commercial Airplanes
   P.O.Box 3707  MC 07-25
   Seattle, WA  98124-2207
   USA

   Phone: 206-280-3715
   Email: Terry.L.Davis@boeing.com











































Eddy, et al.             Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 26]


Internet-Draft     Aero and Space NEMO RO Requirements     February 2008


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2008).

   This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
   contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
   retain all their rights.

   This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
   "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
   OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY, THE IETF TRUST AND
   THE INTERNET ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS
   OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF
   THE INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
   WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.


Intellectual Property

   The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
   Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
   pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
   this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
   might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
   made any independent effort to identify any such rights.  Information
   on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
   found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
   assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
   attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
   such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
   specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
   http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

   The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
   copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
   rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
   this standard.  Please address the information to the IETF at
   ietf-ipr@ietf.org.


Acknowledgment

   Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
   Administrative Support Activity (IASA).





Eddy, et al.             Expires August 28, 2008               [Page 27]