Network Transparency in a Mountain Rescue Domain

1. Network Transparency in a Mountain Rescue Domain Ben McCarthy (Lancaster University)

2. 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

3. 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)

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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…

11. 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

12. Mountain Rescue Interface

13. 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

14. 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 • ??

15. 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

16. 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 

17. Questions? Further Information: www.network-mobility.org