[Sis-csi] Telecon today, 10/12 @ 3:30PM EST

[Marc Blanchet]

I think the way to start this work is to define requirements or use  
cases or scenarios, in  technical/IP terms. Instead of moving into  
the solution space. By defining requirements, the current or future  
solutions can then be mapped into the requirements and then pick and  
choose or define work to be done.

my canadian 2 cents.

Marc.


Le 06-10-12 à 10:04, Scott, Keith L. a écrit :

> Right, and this was in fact the genesis for some rather odd  
> addressing schemes that have been proposed in other venues, such as  
> placing all of the 'space-facing' interfaces into a single subnet.   
> Things get sticky when you want to communicate from the ground  
> directly to S/C1 or if you want to use S/C2 as a relay to get to S/ 
> C1.  I'd prefer some solution that didn't involve renumbering  
> interfaces on the fly (ICK!).
>
> The unnumbered interfaces idea might be really good, especially  
> since I haven't heard anybody proposing anything except serial data  
> links between space and ground or between spacecraft.  I'm a bit  
> leery of anything that requires bidirectional connectivity (like  
> negotiating link-local addresses) as bidirectional connectivity's  
> not necessarily a given.
>
> I also don't think we're necessarily tied to what commercial  
> routers allow or don't allow; though knowing when we're in/out of  
> the bounds of commercial implementations is VERY useful.
>
>         --keith
>
>
> From: Ivancic, William D. (GRC-RCN0)  
> [mailto:william.d.ivancic at nasa.gov]
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 9:51 AM
> To: Scott, Keith L.; sis-csi at mailman.ccsds.org
> Subject: RE: [Sis-csi] Telecon today, 10/12 @ 3:30PM EST
>
> Traditionally routers have to be on the same network.   This  
> creates problems for space-based networks - particularly if one  
> wishes to share infrastructure.   We are seeing similar issues in  
> aeronautics network centric operations.   Some thoughts that need  
> investigation are:
>
> Can one use unnumbered serial interfaces to connect routers?  This  
> would allow router interfaces to not have to be on the same  
> network.  I think we tried this and it did not work, but we haven't  
> tried to hard due to manpower and money.
>
> Can IPv6 link-local addressing help?   I haven't had the  
> opportunity to see how IPv6 can help.   Auto-configuration may also  
> be a solution.  I know of one company that was looking at dynamic  
> NEMO techniques that use some IPv6 capability to some interesting  
> dynamic things (no home agent required).   I will see if I can find  
> the Internet Draft is one exists.
>
>
> Will
>
> ******************************
>
> William D. Ivancic
>
> Phone 216-433-3494
>
> Fax 216-433-8705
>
> Lab 216-433-2620
>
> Mobile 440-503-4892
>
> http://roland.grc.nasa.gov/~ivancic
>
>
>
> From: sis-csi-bounces at mailman.ccsds.org [mailto:sis-csi- 
> bounces at mailman.ccsds.org] On Behalf Of Scott, Keith L.
> Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 8:44 AM
> To: sis-csi at mailman.ccsds.org
> Subject: [Sis-csi] Telecon today, 10/12 @ 3:30PM EST
>
> 12:30 Pacific
> 3:30 Eastern
>
> NEW NUMBER: 703.983.6338 (703.983.MEET)   [It's not my fault]
>
> I'd like to talk about plans to get the first set of specifications  
> going, starting with addressing and routing plans.  Come armed with  
> your thoughts on what routing protocols might be appropriate where,  
> how we might want to break things into CIDR blocks, etc.
>
>         --keith
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sis-CSI mailing list
> Sis-CSI at mailman.ccsds.org
> http://mailman.ccsds.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sis-csi