AGENDA ITEM 4.4: Mobility, Multi-Homing and Multilink Fred Templin (Boeing) presented WP09 on the Boeing proposal for Asymmetric Extended Route Optimization (AERO). This was in response to Action Item 19-8, hence this item is CLOSED. Thismobility solution based on a number of earlier IETF (Internet) RFCs and has been published as an RFC in its own right with a second edition in preparation. 6.2 Fred outlined many of the advantages of this approach, the key ones are as follows: End-user devices are treated as mobile routers (as opposed to Nodes). Can support at the network layer (the preferred solution at this “multilink”, time, does this at the transport layer and does not support UDP). Route Optimisation is inherent. All servers support DCP. For intermediate links both IPv4 and IPv6 may be used. The aircraft uses a globally known address which does not change. On the mobile routers need to support the AERO Protocol. 6.3 Many of the meeting participants asked a number of question which then raised issues for further investigation. These can be summarised as follows: Although this approach had clear merit, certification and maintenance/support The volume of overheads, i.e; control and routing messages, when used in an aeronautical mobile environment . Encapsulation and other processing are needed on the aircraft, which runs counter to the principle of simplifying the avionics function and design. 6.4 The above discussion generated a number of action items: ACTION ITEM 20-4: Boeing to provide a quantitative analysis on the traffic and message overheads associated with the use of AERO in a mobile aeronautical environment. 6.5 Mahdu Nraula presented WP10 IP Mobility. The proposal considered a number background requirements which any mobility solution must meet, :
AGENDA ITEM 4.4: Mobility, Multi-Homing and Multilink Fred Templin (Boeing) presented WP09 on the Boeing proposal for Asymmetric Extended Route Optimization (AERO). This was in response to Action Item 19-8, hence this item is CLOSED. Thismobility solution based on a number of earlier IETF (Internet) RFCs and has been published as an RFC in its own right with a second edition in preparation. 6.2 Fred outlined many of the advantages of this approach, the key ones are as follows: End-user devices are treated as mobile routers (as opposed to Nodes). Can support “multilink”, at the network layer (the preferred solution at this time, does this at the transport layer and does not support UDP). Route Optimisation is inherent. All servers support DCP. For intermediate links both IPv4 and IPv6 may be used. The aircraft uses a globally known address which does not change. On the mobile routers need to support the AERO Protocol. 6.3 Many of the meeting participants asked a number of question which then raised issues for further investigation. These can be summarised as follows: Although this approach had clear merit, certification and maintenance/support The volume of overheads, i.e; control and routing messages, when used in an aeronautical mobile environment . Encapsulation and other processing are needed on the aircraft, which runs counter to the principle of simplifying the avionics function and design. 6.4 The above discussion generated a number of action items: ACTION ITEM 20-4: Boeing to provide a quantitative analysis on the traffic and message overheads associated with the use of AERO in a mobile aeronautical environment. 6.5 Mahdu Nraula presented WP10 IP Mobility. The proposal considered a number background requirements which any mobility solution must meet, :
Draft%20Report%20of%20WG-1%2020%20%20at%20Mar7%20V6.docx