Network Transparency in a Mountain Rescue Domain

Ben McCarthy(Lancaster University)

Presentation OverviewMountain 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

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 Scenario

Mountain Rescue NetworkCommunication 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

MCM• Mountain Rescue Scenario• Fleet / Convoy / Motorcade Scenarios• Military Scenarios

NCM• PANs on Trains / Planes• Intelligent Transport Services (V2I)• Some Sensor Networks

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 InterfaceA 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

Further Information: www.network-mobility.orgFurther Information: www.network-mobility.org

Questions?