Transcript Sdfkjdf kjhsfj jkdhf

Network Transparency in a Mountain
Rescue Domain
Ben McCarthy
(Lancaster University)
Presentation Overview
Mountain Rescue Scenario:
• Mountain Rescue Network Model
• Provides important input into our MANEMO based research
• Interface Software
MANEMO (MANET + NEMO):
• MANET-Centric & NEMO-Centric MANEMO
• Unified MANEMO Architecture (UMA)
• Introduce other MANEMO use case scenarios
IPv6 Dead or Alive?
• My perspective
Mountain Rescue Scenario
Challenging domain for IP communications :
• Potential Benefits for mountain rescue team: Location Info,
voice + video, improved mission control, communication
resilience…
Research in Collaboration with
the Cockermouth MRT
• Lake District (UK)
Mountain Rescue Network
Communication model:
• Avoid reliance on fixed infrastructure where possible
• Ad-Hoc / Hastily Formed Network (HFN) structure
• Fallback onto any available access network (GPRS, SAT, TETRA, etc)
• Implies possible service degradation and additional costs
Rescue team structure:
• ~40 members | Divided into search parties of 3 – 6 members
• 3 All Terrain Vehicles | 4th in the pipeline
Network model based on use of Mobile Networks:
• Sporadic introduction of COTS devices into the network.
• Support the use of PANs and VANs
Mountain Rescue Network
Primary Communication:
•
Short range communication
between team members
• 802.11a/b/g ad-hoc
•
Longer Range communication to
vehicles and HQ
• WiMAX?
Secondary Communication:
•
GSM/GPRS/UMTS
• Partial coverage
•
•
Satellite (Vehicles), Tetra
Strategic hotspots - ISS
Comms work done as part of the EU Project U2010
MANEMO (MANET + NEMO)
NEtwork MObility - NEMO:
• Mobile IPv6 extension to support entire networks of moving devices
• Vehicle based networks: Trains, Buses, Planes, Domestic Vehicles
• Personal Mobile Routers (PMRs)
Nested NEMO Problem:
•When NEMOs connect to one another
•Packets visit every HA in the path
•Routing becomes extremely
inefficient
MANEMO (MANET + NEMO)
MANET + NEMO combination is mutually beneficial:
• NEMO-Centric MANEMO (NCM)
• MANET routing used to optimise communication between Mobile
Routers in Nested NEMO scenario
• MANET-Centric MANEMO (MCM)
• NEMO HA & Tunnelling used to provide MANET with consistent
global reachability
NCM
• PANs on Trains / Planes
• Intelligent Transport Services (V2I)
• Some Sensor Networks
MCM
• Mountain Rescue Scenario
• Fleet / Convoy / Motorcade Scenarios
• Military Scenarios
The Unified MANEMO Architecture (UMA)
Lancaster University’s Unified MANEMO Solution:
• Support NCM & MCM scenarios with one solution
Fundamental Concept:
• Maintain global connectivity and efficient routing through HA – HA
communication and Proxy-HA registration
• MR Attaches to MANEMO Fringe Stub (MFS)
• Obtains the Addr of nearest Gateway MR
• Sends Binding directly to Gateway MRs HA
• Proxy-HA
• Proxy-HA performs HA-HA Binding with target
UMA: Mountain Rescue Scenario
Mountain Rescue model is an example of MANET-Centric MANEMO
• Intercommunication between team members (MRs) is key
• MR losses connectivity locally with MFS
• Tunnel setup & HA involvement in MANET routing ensures connectivity
remains – Network heterogeneity is hidden from other MRs
Simplistic Model:- Only 1 Home Network (1 HA)
• Known as Aggregated MCM
UMA: Mountain Rescue Scenario
Complex Model:- More than 1 Home Network (>1 HAs)
• Rescue teams often collaborate on missions
• Multiple teams = Multiple HQs = Multiple Has
• Known as Non-Aggregated MCM
HA-HA Communication
• HAs update one another…
Mountain Rescue Network Interface
A fundamental function of the MRN will be to improve
rescue mission coordination:
• Developed Mountain Rescue Interface to illustrate capabilities
Interface Features:
• 2D and 3D Real time mapping
• Rescue mission playback
• Using GPS coordinates captured by any device
• Distributed client support
• Rescue Team member database
• Geofencing
Mountain Rescue Interface
IPv6 Dead or Alive?
Motivation to migrate to IPv6?
• Latest predictions for IPv4 Address space saturation
• Exhaustion of IANA unallocated pool: Mar 2010 *
• …but if unadvertised address pool is utilised: Jan 2018 *
No demand from the end user
• Users see services and applications
• No Killer App/Service that can only be provided by v6
NAT now seen by many sysadmin as a useful tool
• Security tool
• More freedom with addressing
* Geoff Huston’s IPv4 Address Report: http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4
IPv6 Dead or Alive?
Technologies that could rapidly affect the uptake of IPv6
exist:
• Mobile Phones – If every handset has a static IP
• Mobile Networks
• Vehicular Networks
• Personal Mobile Routers
Unknown technologies may appear
• TCP Stack per core concept
• ??
IPv6 Dead or Alive?
Conflicting Interests: Equipment Vendors vs. ISPs
• Vendors:
• IPv6 is supported in most mainstream networking equipment,
Operating Systems and a vast array of applications.
• Vendors want a return on that investment
• Additional revenue available from retraining, etc
• ISPs
• ISPs would bear the brunt of the changeover costs (training,
equipment upgrades, teething problems).
• Simple demand and supply: Static IP sales
Finally…
“The GreatIPv6 Experiment” maybe an interesting
benchmark of IPv6 in the current Internet
• www.ipv6experiment.com
Simple Concept:
• Offer users a high demand service that can only be accessed
over IPv6 – For free!
• Then monitor usage, diagnose large scale problems and
generally assess the feasibility of using IPv6 today.
• Which high demand service have they opted for?
• Adult Entertainment 
Questions?
Further Information: www.network-mobility.org