idnits 2.17.1 draft-templin-atn-bgp-00.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the IETF Trust and authors Copyright Line does not match the current year -- The document date (March 13, 2017) is 2594 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Informational ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Unused Reference: 'RFC0791' is defined on line 502, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: 'RFC2460' is defined on line 506, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2460 (Obsoleted by RFC 8200) == Outdated reference: A later version (-08) exists of draft-templin-6man-rio-redirect-01 == Outdated reference: A later version (-82) exists of draft-templin-aerolink-74 -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 5246 (Obsoleted by RFC 8446) Summary: 1 error (**), 0 flaws (~~), 5 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group F. Templin, Ed. 3 Internet-Draft Boeing Research & Technology 4 Intended status: Informational March 13, 2017 5 Expires: September 14, 2017 7 A Simple BGP-based Mobile Routing System for the Aeronautical 8 Telecommunications Network 9 draft-templin-atn-bgp-00.txt 11 Abstract 13 The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) is investigating 14 mobile routing solutions for a worldwide Aeronautical 15 Telecommunications Network with Internet Protocol Services (ATN/IPS). 16 The ATN/IPS will eventually replace existing communication services 17 with an IPv6-based service supporting pervasive Air Traffic 18 Management (ATM) for Air Traffic Controllers (ATC), Airline 19 Operations Controllers (AOC), and all commercial aircraft worldwide. 20 This informational document describes a simple mobile routing service 21 based on mature industry standards to address the ATN/IPS 22 requirements. 24 Status of This Memo 26 This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the 27 provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. 29 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 30 Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute 31 working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- 32 Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. 34 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 35 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 36 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 37 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 39 This Internet-Draft will expire on September 14, 2017. 41 Copyright Notice 43 Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the 44 document authors. All rights reserved. 46 This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal 47 Provisions Relating to IETF Documents 48 (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of 49 publication of this document. Please review these documents 50 carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect 51 to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must 52 include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of 53 the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as 54 described in the Simplified BSD License. 56 Table of Contents 58 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 59 2. Proposed BGP-based ATN/IPS Routing System . . . . . . . . . . 4 60 3. Route Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 61 4. Route Availability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 62 5. BGP Protocol Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 63 6. Implementation Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 64 7. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 65 8. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 66 9. Related Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 67 10. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 68 11. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 69 11.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 70 11.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 71 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 73 1. Introduction 75 The International Civil Aviation Organization [ICAO] is investigating 76 mobile routing solutions for a worldwide Aeronautical 77 Telecommunications Network with Internet Protocol Services (ATN/IPS). 78 The ATN/IPS will eventually replace existing communication services 79 with an IPv6-based service supporting pervasive Air Traffic 80 Management (ATM) for Air Traffic Controllers (ATC), Airline 81 Operations Controllers (AOC), and all commercial aircraft worldwide. 82 This informational document describes a simple mobile routing service 83 based on mature industry standards to address the ATN/IPS 84 requirements. 86 Aircraft communicate via wireless aviation data links that typically 87 support much lower data rates than terrestrial wireless and wired- 88 line communications. For example, VHF-based data links only support 89 data rates on the order of 32Kbps and an emerging L-Band data link 90 that is expected to play a key role in future aeronautical 91 communications only supports rates on the order of 1Mbps. Although 92 satellite data links can provide much higher data rates during 93 optimal conditions, they (like all other aviation data links) are 94 subject to errors, delay, disruption, signal intermittence, 95 degradation due to atmospheric conditions, etc. The well-connected 96 ground domain ATN/IPS network should therefore treat each safety-of- 97 flight critical packet produced by (or destined to) an aircraft as a 98 precious commodity and strive for a "better-than-best-effort" service 99 that provides the highest possible degree of reliability. 101 The ATN/IPS assumes a worldwide connected Internetwork for carrying 102 ATM communications. The Internetwork could be manifested as a 103 private collection of long-haul backbone links (e.g., fiberoptics, 104 copper, SATCOM, etc.) interconnected by high-performance networking 105 gear such as bridges, switches and routers. Such a private 106 Internetwork would need to connect all ATN/IPS participants 107 worldwide, and could therefore present a considerable cost for a 108 large-scale deployment of new infrastructure. Alternatively, the 109 ATN/IPS could be deployed as an overlay over the existing global 110 public Internet itself as long as sufficient security and reliability 111 provisions are met. 113 The ATN/IPS further assumes that each aircraft will receive an IPv6 114 Mobile Network Prefix (MNP) that accompanies the aircraft wherever it 115 travels. ATCs and AOCs will likewise receive IPv6 prefixes, but they 116 would typically appear in static (not mobile) deployments. 117 Throughout the rest of this document, we therefore use the term "MNP" 118 when discussing an IPv6 prefix that is delegated to any ATN/IPS end 119 system, including ATCs, AOCs and aircraft. We also use the term 120 Mobility Service Prefix (MSP) to refer to an aggregated prefix 121 assigned to the ATN/IPS by an Internet assigned numbers authority, 122 and from which all MNPs are delegated (e.g., up to 2**32 IPv6 /64 123 MNPs could be delegated from the MSP 2001:db8::/32). 125 [CBB] describes an aviation mobile routing service based on dynamic 126 updates in the global public Internet Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) 127 [RFC4271] routing system. Practical experience with the approach has 128 shown that frequent injections and withdrawals of MNPs in the 129 Internet routing system results in excessive BGP update messaging, 130 slow routing table convergence times, and extended outages when no 131 route is available. This is due to both conservative default BGP 132 protocol timing parameters (see Section 5) and the complex peering 133 interconnections of BGP routers within the global Internet 134 infrastructure. The situation is further exacerbated by frequent 135 aircraft mobility events that each result in BGP updates that must be 136 propagated to all BGP routers in the Internet that carry a full 137 routing table. 139 We therefore consider a new approach using a BGP overlay network 140 routing system where a private BGP routing protocol instance is 141 maintained between ATN/IPS Autonomous System (AS) Border Routers 142 (ASBRs). The private BGP instance does not interact with the 143 Internetwork BGP routing system, and BGP updates are unidirectional 144 from "stub" ASBRs (s-ASBRs) to a very small set of "core" ASBRs 145 (c-ASBRs) in a hub-and-spokes arrangement. 147 The s-ASBRs for each stub AS connect to a small number of c-ASBRs via 148 dedicated high speed links and/or tunnels across the Internetwork 149 using industry-standard encapsulations (e.g., Generic Routing 150 Encapsulation (GRE) [RFC2784], IPsec [RFC4301] etc.). The s-ASBRs 151 engage in external BGP (eBGP) peerings with their respective c-ASBRs, 152 and only maintain routing table entries for the MNPs currently active 153 within the stub AS. A stub AS may connect to the core via multiple 154 s-ASBRs, in which case the s-ASBRs would engage in internal BGP 155 (iBGP) peerings among themselves to maintain a common view of the 156 stub AS MNPs. Finally, the s-ASBRs also maintain default routes with 157 their c-ASBRs as the next hop, and therefore hold only partial 158 topology information. 160 The c-ASBRs connect to other c-ASBRs using iBGP peerings over which 161 they collaboratively maintain a full routing table for all active 162 MNPs currently in service. Therefore, only the c-ASBRs maintain a 163 full BGP routing table and never send any BGP updates to s-ASBRs. 164 This simple arrangement therefore greatly reduces the number of BGP 165 updates that need to be synchronized among peers, and the number is 166 reduced further still when localized mobility events within stub ASes 167 (i.e., "intradomain" mobility events) are mitigated within the AS 168 instead of being propagated to the core. 170 The following section provides a detailed discussion of the proposed 171 BGP-based ATN/IPS routing system. 173 2. Proposed BGP-based ATN/IPS Routing System 175 The proposed ATN/IPS routing system comprises a private BGP instance 176 coordinated between ASBRs in an overlay network. The overlay does 177 not interact with the native Internetwork BGP routing system, and 178 each c-ASBR advertises only a small and unchanging set of MSPs into 179 the Internetwork instead of the full dynamically changing set of 180 MNPs. 182 In a reference deployment, one or more s-ASBRs connect each stub AS 183 to the overlay using a shared stub AS Number (ASN). Each s-ASBR 184 further uses eBGP to peer with one or more c-ASBRs. All c-ASBRs are 185 members of the same core AS, and use a shared core ASN. The c-ASBRs 186 further use iBGP to maintain a synchronized consistent view of all 187 active MNPs currently in service. Figure 1 below represents the 188 reference deployment. Note that in the figure only two s-ASBRs show 189 detail, but similar arrangements are implied for all other s-ASBRs. 190 Note also that each stub AS shows only a single s-ASBR with a single 191 c-ASBR connection, but in practical deployments each stub AS may have 192 multiple s-ASBRs that peer with each other via iBGP and also peer 193 with multiple c-ASBRs via eBGP, e.g., for fault tolerance. 195 ........................................................... 196 . . 197 . (:::)-. <- Stub ASes -> (:::)-. . 198 . MNPs-> .-(:::::::::) .-(:::::::::) <-MNPs . 199 . `-(::::)-' `-(::::)-' . 200 . +-------+ +-------+ . 201 . |s-ASBR1| |s-ASBR2| . 202 . +--+----+ +-----+-+ . 203 . \ / . 204 . \eBGP /eBGP . 205 . \ / . 206 . +-------+ +-------+ . 207 . eBGP+-----+c-ASBR1| +c-ASBR2+-----+eBGP . 208 . +-------+ / +--+----+ +-----+-+ \ +-------+ . 209 . |s-ASBRn+/ iBGP\ (:::)-. /iBGP \+s-ASBR3| . 210 . +-------+ .-(::::::::) +-------+ . 211 . . .-(::::::::::::::)-. . 212 . . (:::: Core AS :::) . 213 . +-------+ `-(:::::::::::::)-' +-------+ . 214 . |s-ASBR7+\ iBGP/`-(:::::::-'\iBGP /+s-ASBR4| . 215 . +-------+ \ +-+-----+ +----+--+ / +-------+ . 216 . eBGP+-----+c-ASBRn| |c-ASBR3+-----+eBGP . 217 . +-------+ +-------+ . 218 . / \ . 219 . /eBGP \eBGP . 220 . / \ . 221 . +---+---+ +-----+-+ . 222 . |s-ASBR6| |s-ASBR5| . 223 . +-------+ +-------+ . 224 . . 225 . . 226 . <------------------- Internetwork --------------------> . 227 ............................................................ 229 Figure 1: Reference Deployment 231 In the reference deployment, each s-ASBR maintains routes for active 232 MNPs that currently belong to its stub AS, and dynamically announces 233 new MNPs and withdraws departed MNPs in its eBGP updates to c-ASBRs 234 in response to "interdomain" mobility events. Since ATN/IPS end 235 systems are expected to remain within the same stub AS for extended 236 timeframes, however, intradomain mobility events (such as an aircraft 237 handing off between cell towers) are handled locally within the stub 238 AS instead of being propagated as interdomain eBGP updates. 240 Each c-ASBR configures a black-hole route for each of its MSPs. By 241 black-holing the MSPs, the c-ASBR will maintain forwarding table 242 entries only for the MNPs that are currently active, and packets 243 destined to all other MNPs will correctly incur ICMPv6 Destination 244 Unreachable messages [RFC4443] due to the black hole route. The 245 c-ASBRs do not send eBGP updates for MNPs to s-ASBRs, but instead 246 originate a default route. In this way, s-ASBRs have only partial 247 topology knowledge (i.e., they know only about the active MNPs 248 currently within their stub ASes) and they forward all other packets 249 to c-ASBRs which have full topology knowledge. 251 Scaling properties of this ATN/IPS routing system are limited by the 252 number of BGP routes that can be carried by the c-ASBRs. A 2015 253 study showed that BGP routers in the global public Internet at that 254 time carried more than 500K routes with linear growth and no signs of 255 router resource exhaustion [BGP]. A more recent network emulation 256 study also showed that a single c-ASBR can accommodate at least 1M 257 dynamically changing BGP routes even on a lightweight virtual 258 machine, with the expectation that high-performance dedicated router 259 hardware can support even more. 261 Therefore, assuming each c-ASBR can carry 1M or more routes, this 262 means that at least 1M ATN/IPS end system MNPs can be serviced by a 263 single set of c-ASBRs. A means of increasing scaling would be to 264 assign a different set of c-ASBRs for each set of MSPs. In that 265 case, each s-ASBR still peers with one or more c-ASBRs from each set 266 of c-ASBRs, but the s-ASBR institutes route filters so that it only 267 sends BGP updates to the specific set of c-ASBRs that aggregate the 268 MSP. For example, if the MSP for the ATN/IPS deployment is 269 2001:db8::/32, a first set of c-ASBRs could service the MSP segment 270 2001:db8::/40, a second set could service 2001:db8:0100::/40, a third 271 set could service 2001:db8:0200::/40, etc. 273 Assuming up to 1K sets of c-ASBRs, the ATN/IPS routing system can 274 then accommodate 1B or more MNPs. In this way, each set of c-ASBRs 275 services a specific set of MSPs that they advertise to the native 276 Internetwork routing system, and each s-ASBR configures MSP-specific 277 routes that list the correct set of c-ASBRs as next hops. This 278 arrangement also allows for natural incremental deployment, and can 279 support small scale initial deployments followed by dynamic 280 deployment of additional ATN/IPS infrastructure elements without 281 disturbing the already-deployed base. 283 Finally, c-ASBRs may have multiple routing table entries for a single 284 MNP advertised by multiple s-ASBRs. Each s-ASBR can advertise a 285 MULTI_EXIT_DISC (MED) metric for routes that it originates in its 286 eBGP peering configurations [RFC4451] so that c-ASBRs can determine 287 preferences for MNPs learned from multiple s-ASBRs. In this way, 288 c-ASBRs can select the neighboring s-ASBR with the lowest MED value, 289 i.e., even if it is not on the shortest path. The c-ASBR can then 290 fail over to a s-ASBR with a larger MED value in case of MNP 291 withdrawal or s-ASBR failure. Such an event could correspond to an 292 aviation data link handover, e.g., when an aircraft switches over 293 from a satellite link to an L-Band link. 295 3. Route Optimization 297 ATN/IPS end systems will frequently need to communicate with 298 correspondents located in other stub ASes. In the ASBR peering 299 arrangement discussed in Section 2, this can initially only be 300 accommodated by having the source s-ASBR forward packets to a c-ASBR 301 which then forwards the packets toward the destination s-ASBR where 302 the destination ATN/IPS end system resides. In many cases, it would 303 be desirable to eliminate c-ASBRs from this "dogleg" route so that 304 the source s-ASBR can send packets directly to the destination s-ASBR 305 through tunneling across the Internetwork. This can be accomplished 306 using a route optimization service based on the IPv6 Neighbor 307 Discovery Redirect function [RFC4861][RFC6706][I-D.templin-aerolink][ 308 I-D.templin-6man-rio-redirect]. 310 A route optimization example is shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3 below. 311 In the first figure, the dogleg route between correspondents in the 312 stub ASes traverses the path from s-ASBR1 to c-ASBR1 to c-ASBR2 to 313 S-ASBR2. In the second figure, the optimized route goes directly 314 from s-ASBR1 to s-ASBR2, i.e., the c-ASBRs are not included in the 315 path. 317 ........................................................... 318 . . 319 . (:::)-. <- Stub ASes -> (:::)-. . 320 . MNPs-> .-(:::::::::) .-(:::::::::) <-MNPs . 321 . `-(::::)-' `-(::::)-' . 322 . +-------+ +-------+ . 323 . |s-ASBR1| |s-ASBR2| . 324 . +--+--^^+ +^^---+-+ . 325 . \ \\ Dogleg // / . 326 . eBGP\ \\ Route // /eBGP . 327 . \ \\============// / . 328 . +-------+ +-------+ . 329 . +c-ASBR1| +c-ASBR2+ . 330 . +--+----+ +-----+-+ . 331 . +--------------+ . 332 . iBGP . 333 . . 334 . <------------------- Internetwork --------------------> . 335 ............................................................ 337 Figure 2: Dogleg Route Before Optimization 339 ........................................................... 340 . . 341 . (:::)-. <- Stub ASes -> (:::)-. . 342 . MNPs-> .-(:::::::::) .-(:::::::::) <-MNPs . 343 . `-(::::)-' `-(::::)-' . 344 . +-------+ Direct +-------+ . 345 . |s-ASBR1<================>s-ASBR2| . 346 . +--+----+ Route +-----+-+ . 347 . \ / . 348 . eBGP\ /eBGP . 349 . \ / . 350 . +-------+ +-------+ . 351 . +c-ASBR1| +c-ASBR2+ . 352 . +--+----+ +-----+-+ . 353 . +--------------+ . 354 . iBGP . 355 . . 356 . <------------------- Internetwork --------------------> . 357 ............................................................ 359 Figure 3: Direct Route Following Optimization 361 It is very important to understand that route optimization can fail 362 if the source s-ASBR cannot tunnel packets directly to the 363 destination s-ASBR due to some form of Internetwork blockage such as 364 filtering middleboxes. It is also necessary for the source s-ASBR to 365 quickly detect and adjust to failure of the destination s-ASBR. In 366 both of these cases, significant packet loss could occur before the 367 source s-ASBR can detect that the route-optimized path has failed. 368 This implies that route optimized paths may not always be the best 369 choice for carrying safety-of-flight critical packets with high 370 reliability requirements. 372 4. Route Availability 374 In the ATN/IPS BGP-based routing system proposed in this document, 375 each s-ASBR always has a default route and can therefore always send 376 packets via the dogleg route through a c-ASBR even if a route 377 optimized path has been established. The direct paths between 378 s-ASBRs and c-ASBRs are maintained by BGP peering session keepalives 379 such that, if a link or an ASBR goes down, BGP will detect the 380 failure and readjust the routing tables. However, ASBRs and the 381 links that interconnect them are expected to be secured as highly- 382 available and fault tolerant critical infrastructure such that 383 peering session failures should be extremely rare. 385 This represents a distinct architectural difference from other 386 approaches that only operate over route optimized paths. With the 387 approach described herein the source s-ASBR will always have a 388 working route, even if only via a dogleg path through a c-ASBR. This 389 gives rise to the possibility of sending {high-priority, low-data- 390 rate} packets via the assured dogleg route and {low-priority, high- 391 data-rate} packets via the optimized route, e.g., based on per-packet 392 quality of service indications. This could also give rise to a fair 393 pricing model that would charge more for the use of the high- 394 assurance dogleg path and less for the use of the lesser-assured 395 route-optimized path. 397 This distinction is of vital importance to aviation networking, where 398 isolated safety-of-flight critical packets such as produced by the 399 Controller Pilot Data Link Communications (CPDLC) facility may not be 400 eligible for retransmission, e.g., if an aviation data link is 401 failing. If there is no route available, the packet can be dropped 402 or delayed and safety-of-flight parameters could be lost. Even when 403 an optimized route is discovered on-demand, the route may not work 404 and again safety-of-flight critical packets could be lost. 406 In summary, the approach proposed in this document is a proactive 407 routing protocol that ensures that at least one working route will 408 always be available. This is in contrast to on-demand routing 409 protocols that must either drop or delay safety-of-flight critical 410 packets when there is no route available. 412 5. BGP Protocol Considerations 414 The number of eBGP peering sessions that each c-ASBR must service is 415 proportional to the number of s-ASBRs in the system. Network 416 emulations with lightweight virtual machines have shown that a single 417 c-ASBR can service at least 100 eBGP peerings from s-ASBRs that each 418 advertise 10K MNP routes (i.e., 1M total). It is expected that 419 robust c-ASBRs can service many more peerings than this - possibly by 420 multiple orders of magnitude. But even assuming a conservative 421 limit, the number of s-ASBRs could be increased by also increasing 422 the number of c-ASBRs. Since c-ASBRs also peer with each other using 423 iBGP, however, larger-scale c-ASBR deployments may need to employ an 424 adjunct facility such as BGP route reflectors [RFC4456]. 426 Industry standard BGP routers provide configurable parameters with 427 conservative default values. For example, the default hold time is 428 90 seconds, the default keepalive time is 1/3 of the hold time, and 429 the default MinRouteAdvertisementinterval is 30 seconds for eBGP 430 peers and 5 seconds for iBGP peers (see Section 10 of [RFC4271]). 431 For the simple mobile routing system described herein, these 432 parameters can and should be set to more aggressive values to support 433 faster neighbor/link failure detection and faster routing protocol 434 convergence times. For example, a hold time of 3 seconds and a 435 MinRouteAdvertisementinterval of 0 seconds for both iBGP and eBGP. 437 By default, MED only compares metrics that originate from multiple 438 neighbors within the same AS [RFC4451]. In order to compare MED 439 metrics that come from different ASes, a router configuration file 440 entry may be needed (e.g., Cisco routers require the configuration 441 file entry "bgp always-compare-med"). Furthermore, in order for the 442 MED discriminator to be applied correctly, the AS_PATH phase in the 443 BGP route selection process must be disabled (e.g., Cisco routers use 444 the configuration file entry "bgp bestpath as-path ignore"). 446 6. Implementation Status 448 The BGP routing arrangement described in this document has been 449 prototyped in network emulations showing that at least 1 million MNPs 450 can be propagated to each c-ASBR even on lightweight virtual 451 machines. 453 7. IANA Considerations 455 This document does not introduce any IANA considerations. 457 8. Security Considerations 459 ATN/IPS ASBRs on the open Internet are susceptible to the same attack 460 profiles as for any Internet nodes. For this reason, ASBRs should 461 employ physical security and/or IP securing mechanisms such as IPsec 462 [RFC4301], TLS [RFC5246], etc. 464 ATN/IPS ASBRs present targets for Distributed Denial of Service 465 (DDoS) attacks. This concern is no different than for any node on 466 the open Internet, where attackers could send spoofed packets to the 467 node at high data rates. This can be mitigated by connecting ATN/IPS 468 ASBRs over dedicated links with no connections to the Internet and/or 469 when ASBR connections to the Internet are only permitted through 470 well-managed firewalls. 472 ATN/IPS s-ASBRs should institute rate limits to protect low data rate 473 aviation data links from receiving DDoS packet floods. 475 9. Related Work 477 This work has evolved from the author's earlier publications, 478 including: 480 SEAL: [RFC5320][I-D.templin-intarea-seal]. 482 VET: [RFC5558][I-D.templin-intarea-vet]. 484 IRON: [RFC6179][I-D.templin-ironbis]. 486 AERO: [RFC6706][I-D.templin-aerolink][I-D.templin-6man-rio-redirect]. 488 10. Acknowledgements 490 This work is aligned with the FAA as per the SE2025 contract number 491 DTFAWA-15-D-00030. 493 This work is aligned with the NASA Safe Autonomous Systems Operation 494 (SASO) program under NASA contract number NNA16BD84C. 496 This work is aligned with the Boeing Information Technology (BIT) 497 MobileNet program. 499 11. References 500 11.1. Normative References 502 [RFC0791] Postel, J., "Internet Protocol", STD 5, RFC 791, 503 DOI 10.17487/RFC0791, September 1981, 504 . 506 [RFC2460] Deering, S. and R. Hinden, "Internet Protocol, Version 6 507 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 2460, DOI 10.17487/RFC2460, 508 December 1998, . 510 [RFC4271] Rekhter, Y., Ed., Li, T., Ed., and S. Hares, Ed., "A 511 Border Gateway Protocol 4 (BGP-4)", RFC 4271, 512 DOI 10.17487/RFC4271, January 2006, 513 . 515 [RFC4443] Conta, A., Deering, S., and M. Gupta, Ed., "Internet 516 Control Message Protocol (ICMPv6) for the Internet 517 Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Specification", RFC 4443, 518 DOI 10.17487/RFC4443, March 2006, 519 . 521 [RFC4451] McPherson, D. and V. Gill, "BGP MULTI_EXIT_DISC (MED) 522 Considerations", RFC 4451, DOI 10.17487/RFC4451, March 523 2006, . 525 [RFC4456] Bates, T., Chen, E., and R. Chandra, "BGP Route 526 Reflection: An Alternative to Full Mesh Internal BGP 527 (IBGP)", RFC 4456, DOI 10.17487/RFC4456, April 2006, 528 . 530 [RFC4861] Narten, T., Nordmark, E., Simpson, W., and H. Soliman, 531 "Neighbor Discovery for IP version 6 (IPv6)", RFC 4861, 532 DOI 10.17487/RFC4861, September 2007, 533 . 535 11.2. Informative References 537 [BGP] Huston, G., "BGP in 2015, http://potaroo.net", January 538 2016. 540 [CBB] Dul, A., "Global IP Network Mobility using Border Gateway 541 Protocol (BGP), http://www.quark.net/docs/ 542 Global_IP_Network_Mobility_using_BGP.pdf", March 2006. 544 [I-D.templin-6man-rio-redirect] 545 Templin, F. and j. woodyatt, "Route Information Options in 546 Redirect Messages", draft-templin-6man-rio-redirect-01 547 (work in progress), January 2017. 549 [I-D.templin-aerolink] 550 Templin, F., "Asymmetric Extended Route Optimization 551 (AERO)", draft-templin-aerolink-74 (work in progress), 552 November 2016. 554 [I-D.templin-intarea-seal] 555 Templin, F., "The Subnetwork Encapsulation and Adaptation 556 Layer (SEAL)", draft-templin-intarea-seal-68 (work in 557 progress), January 2014. 559 [I-D.templin-intarea-vet] 560 Templin, F., "Virtual Enterprise Traversal (VET)", draft- 561 templin-intarea-vet-40 (work in progress), May 2013. 563 [I-D.templin-ironbis] 564 Templin, F., "The Interior Routing Overlay Network 565 (IRON)", draft-templin-ironbis-16 (work in progress), 566 March 2014. 568 [ICAO] ICAO, I., "http://www.icao.int/Pages/default.aspx", 569 February 2017. 571 [RFC2784] Farinacci, D., Li, T., Hanks, S., Meyer, D., and P. 572 Traina, "Generic Routing Encapsulation (GRE)", RFC 2784, 573 DOI 10.17487/RFC2784, March 2000, 574 . 576 [RFC4301] Kent, S. and K. Seo, "Security Architecture for the 577 Internet Protocol", RFC 4301, DOI 10.17487/RFC4301, 578 December 2005, . 580 [RFC5246] Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security 581 (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246, 582 DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008, 583 . 585 [RFC5320] Templin, F., Ed., "The Subnetwork Encapsulation and 586 Adaptation Layer (SEAL)", RFC 5320, DOI 10.17487/RFC5320, 587 February 2010, . 589 [RFC5558] Templin, F., Ed., "Virtual Enterprise Traversal (VET)", 590 RFC 5558, DOI 10.17487/RFC5558, February 2010, 591 . 593 [RFC6179] Templin, F., Ed., "The Internet Routing Overlay Network 594 (IRON)", RFC 6179, DOI 10.17487/RFC6179, March 2011, 595 . 597 [RFC6706] Templin, F., Ed., "Asymmetric Extended Route Optimization 598 (AERO)", RFC 6706, DOI 10.17487/RFC6706, August 2012, 599 . 601 Author's Address 603 Fred L. Templin (editor) 604 Boeing Research & Technology 605 P.O. Box 3707 606 Seattle, WA 98124 607 USA 609 Email: fltemplin@acm.org