Usage Cases and Functional Requirements for Mesh Networking: A Military Perspective

1. Usage Cases and Functional Requirements for Mesh Networking: A Military Perspective William T. Kasch and Jack L. Burbank The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU/APL) Slide 1 W.T. Kasch, J.L. Burbank

2. Outline • Why take military requirements into account? • Why are mesh networks important to the military? • The Military Transformation • The Military need for mesh networking • What does mesh networking mean to the military? • Examples of current military mesh networking • Future military mesh network enabling concepts and technologies • Notional Military Mesh Network Scenarios • Key functional requirements for military mesh networks • Conclusion Slide 2 W.T. Kasch, J.L. Burbank

3. Why Consider Military Requirements? • Military is a very large potential customer of 802.11s products if military requirements are met • Military already procures significant quantity of 802.11 equipment not originally designed to meet their needs • Lack of suitability is largely responsible for constraining this investment • Significant investment by Military for augmentation of 802.11 technology to better meet needs • Strong desire to leverage commercial-based solutions • Commercial products that can meet Military requirements stand a very good chance of being purchased large scale • Product could be physical hardware or “virtual radio” integrated into DoD’s Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) software radio platform Slide 3 W.T. Kasch, J.L. Burbank

4. The Military Transformation • Historically, military networks have been designed for highly specific applications with highly focused requirements • Resultant proprietary solutions that, while highly effective, suffer from inflexibility, stifling complexity, and poor interoperability • The Military has been transforming itself to enable a more network-centric warfare strategy • More heavy reliance on information collection and dissemination • Fundamental trade of “armor for connectivity” • Highly mobile forces using information to conduct fast/responsive, precise, highly-lethal maneuvers – as opposed to the “war of attrition” paradigm • This new war-fighting paradigm places unprecedented • importance on communication networks Slide 4 W.T. Kasch, J.L. Burbank

5. The Military Transformation (continued) • The networks that aim to enable network-centric warfare are built upon a few basic principles: • Commercial-based standards across networks enabling improved interoperability • As opposed to highly specialized proprietary technologies • Interoperability among individual Services and Allies • New management paradigms • Self-managing, self-configuring, self-healing • As opposed to significant pre-planning Slide 5 W.T. Kasch, J.L. Burbank

6. Military Need for Mesh Networking • Military often operates in regions where network infrastructure does not exist • Sea-based assets/forces, ground-based deployed assets/forces, non-deployed assets/forces • Mesh networking is a key enabling technology • Mesh networks provide the opportunity to provide “instant infrastructure” quickly • Mesh networks provide the opportunity to provide a dynamic and adaptive network infrastructure withoutre-planning • Networks must be capable of keeping up with force movements Slide 6 W.T. Kasch, J.L. Burbank

7. Military Mesh Networks Today • Mesh networking concepts are used or are envisioned to operate for a variety of applications • Non-deployed applications • Deployed ground-based applications • Deployed sea-based applications • Airborne-based applications • Examples: • Two-Way Robust Acquisition of Data program (2-RAD) • Enhanced Position Location Reporting System (EPLRS) • SecNet • Sensor networks • Airborne weapons Slide 7 W.T. Kasch, J.L. Burbank

8. * @ * * @ @ * @ X @ @ X Two-Way Robust Acquisition of Data • An early mesh network concept to enable real-time telemetry collection from mobile platforms • YPG and its 2-RAD prototype implementation extends network access in a mesh fashion where infrastructure is not easily extendable (rough desert terrain) • Wireless bridging application • Fixed infrastructure • Fixed or mobile users 3 Types of YPG WLAN Sites: Slide 8 W.T. Kasch, J.L. Burbank

9. EPLRS • A proprietary “near-mesh” network developed by Raytheon • Provides “robust, on-the-move, high-speed, automated data exchange”* • Has mesh networking characteristics: self-healing, automatic network management • Not a true mesh network (network control stations required) but a step in the direction of true mesh networking for the military • Available in a variety of platforms: manpack, vehicular, airborne • Up to 1500 nodes supported per division *Images and specfications cited here taken from Raytheon EPLRS specification sheet (http://www.raytheon.com/products/eplrs/ref_docs/eplrs.pdf) Slide 9 W.T. Kasch, J.L. Burbank

10. Harris SecNet 11 • Security-enhanced NSA Type 1 encrypted 802.11 WLAN technology • Approved for ad-hoc networking* by operating with the ad-hoc mode of 802.11 • Key management a scalability concern at this point *Specifications taken from Harris SecNet briefing: http://www.govcomm.harris.com/secure-comm/Docs/SecNet11Briefing.pdf Slide 10 W.T. Kasch, J.L. Burbank

11. Future of Military Mesh Networks • Army Future Combat System (FCS) • A networked “system of systems” that will enable more effective use of information on the battlefield • Future Force Warrior (FFW) • Soldier collaboration (voice, video) through mobile mesh networks • Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) • Future Military radio architecture • Software Defined Radio (SDR) platform that will provide common radio across all platform types and enable integration of future capabilities as “virtual radios” • Different “clusters”: Handheld, vehicular, maritime, airborne, embedded • Self-configuring, decentralized networking capabilities built-in for some applications (Wideband Networking Waveform) Slide 11 W.T. Kasch, J.L. Burbank

12. Future Combat System Slide 12 W.T. Kasch, J.L. Burbank

13. UAVs Other Layered Sensors Reconnaissance &Surveillance SUAV Carrier NetFires NLOS Resupply Mortar NLOS APC, C2, CV, RV BLOS/LOS Future Force Warrior Slide 13 W.T. Kasch, J.L. Burbank

14. Military Mesh Network Scenarios • Some notional scenarios: • Soldier-to-soldier networks • Video, voice, health, status • Highly mobile, one of the most dynamic mesh configurations • Multiple platform networks • Could include vehicular, airborne, dismount soldier, and fixed sensor platforms, amongst other possibilities • Large volume of information shared between many different platforms, could include command and control, sensor data, video, voice, amongst other types of data • Sensor networks • Detecting enemy presence, video monitoring • Exploit number of sensor nodes for route redundancy and improved data flow from sensors for reachback to backbone • Ground-based vehicular platforms, ground-based fixed-platforms, sea-based (e.g. buoy) • Airborne networks • Fighter jets could share information to enable effective composite target tracking, voice, video • Missiles, artillery shells, perhaps one day even individual bullets • Maritime networks • Enhanced composite tracking capabilities between multiple radars, voice, video Slide 14 W.T. Kasch, J.L. Burbank

15. Key Characteristics of Mesh Networks • Intelligent • Self-configuring, self-repairing, minimal manual network configuration and maintenance • Distributed • Eliminates any single point of failure • Scalable • MAC and PHY designs accommodate changing topology structure and size, allowing for range extension and redundancy as nodes are added to the network • Highly Mobile • Affords robust support for mobile users • Fast deployment times • Mobility could vary from foot soldier, to vehicular (e.g. HMMWV), to high-speed airborne (e.g. missile) • Affordable • Future military networks consists of very large number of network nodes/users • High Capacity • Future military concepts are bandwidth intensive • Requires an efficient solution Slide 15 W.T. Kasch, J.L. Burbank

16. Key Characteristics (continued) • Operational flexibility • Support fixed operations (e.g. extension of infrastructure) • Fixed access points, fixed and/or mobile users • Support full MANET operations • Full network mobility (mobile infrastructure/access points and users) • Hybrid fixed-MANET operations • Mix of mobile users, mobile infrastructure, and fixed access points • Quality-of-Service (QoS) • Future DoD networks must support QoS concepts • QoS could be based upon application needs, user, platform, and/or mission • QoS must be flexible to support time-varying needs and changing QoS definitions Slide 16 W.T. Kasch, J.L. Burbank

17. Key Characteristics (continued) • Security • Data shared across a military mesh network must be secured to minimize loss of life and maximize operational effectiveness • Communications security • Ideally, solution would support Type I encryption of user data and at least Type II encryption of network management traffic • Network security • Strong authentication and authorization enforcement mechanisms • Operational security • Low probability of intercept/detection (LPI/LPD) and inability to geo-locate nodes critical for covert users • Much research has went into highly directional-antenna (DA) 802.11 networks • Introduces complications from need to perform topology management (particularly for multi-hop communications) Slide 17 W.T. Kasch, J.L. Burbank

18. Key Characteristics (continued) • MANET and DA-MANET operations • Most useful application of mesh networking is in a MANET setting • MANET operations have significant implications for ALL layers of protocol stack (PHY, MAC, Network, Transport, and Application) • Effective solutions for any layer cannot be designed in isolation of the other various layers • Efforts ongoing within other communities to develop MANET solutions • IETF: MANET routing, Mobile IP • Highly beneficial if IEEE PHY/MAC mesh networking technology specifications tightly coupled with IETF MANET and Mobility activities (and vice-versa) • Not that one design should drive the other, but both technologies should be designed in a collaborative environment Slide 18 W.T. Kasch, J.L. Burbank

19. Conclusion • Mesh networks will be an integral part of tomorrow’s network-centric Military force • Such networks meet some of the key needs of the Military: • Intelligent, automatic network configuration and maintenance • Distributed architecture reduces the risk of a single point of failure • Scalable mesh network protocol design allows for range extension and robust redundant routes • Mobility support enables the required flexibility of units to move within the battlefield and provide instant networking capability where needed the most at the current time • Affordable units are embedded with the necessary hardware and software to enable instant mesh networking, minimizing or eliminating infrastructure deployment and maintenance • Open issues for Military mesh networks • End-to-End QoS • Support of MANET routing protocols • Adaptability • Security • Way forward • Should a more comprehensive document describing Military needs for mesh networking be pursued or integrated into existing documents (Usage Cases?) Slide 19 W.T. Kasch, J.L. Burbank