1 / 17

Network Transparency in a Mountain Rescue Domain

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):

fancy
Download Presentation

Network Transparency in a Mountain Rescue Domain

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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

More Related