home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
Text File | 2003-06-11 | 64.7 KB | 1,516 lines |
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Network Working Group T. Imielinski
- Request for Comments: 2009 J. Navas
- Category: Experimental Rutgers University
- November 1996
-
-
- GPS-Based Addressing and Routing
-
- Status of this Memo
-
- This memo defines an Experimental Protocol for the Internet
- community. This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any
- kind. Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested.
- Distribution of this memo is unlimited.
-
- IANA Note:
-
- This document describes a possible experiment with geographic
- addresses. It uses several specific IP addresses and domain names in
- the discussion as concrete examples to aid in understanding the
- concepts. Please note that these addresses and names are not
- registered, assigned, allocated, or delegated to the use suggested
- here.
-
- Table of Contents
-
- 1. Introduction...................................... 2
- 1b. General Architecture...................... 3
- 1c. Scenarios of Usage: Interface Issues...... 3
- 2. Addressing Model.................................. 4
- 2a. Using GPS for Destination Addresses....... 5
- 3. Routing........................................... 7
- 3a. GPS Multicast Routing Scheme (GPSM)...... 7
- 3a-i. Multicast Trees................... 8
- 3a-ii. Determining the GPS Multicast
- Addressing........................ 10
- 3a-iii. Building Multicast Trees.......... 11
- 3a-iv. Routing........................... 12
- 3a-v. DNS Issues........................ 12
- 3a-vi. Estimations....................... 12
- 3b. "Last Mile" Routing..................... 13
- 3b-i. Application Level Filtering....... 13
- 3b-ii. Multicast Filtering............... 13
- 3b-iii. Computers on Fixed Networks....... 14
- 3c. Geometric Routing Scheme (GEO)........... 14
- 3c-i. Routing Overview.................. 14
- 3c-ii. Supporting Long-Duration GPScasts. 16
- 3c-iii. Discovering A Router's Service Area 17
-
-
-
- Imielinski & Navas Experimental [Page 1]
-
- RFC 2009 GPS-Based Addressing and Routing November 1996
-
-
- 3c-iv. Hierarchical Router Structure and
- Multicast Groups.................. 18
- 3c-v. Routing Optimizations............. 19
- 3c-vi. Router-Failure Recovery Scheme.... 19
- 3c-vii. Domain Name Service Issues........ 20
- 4. Router Daemon and Host Library.................... 21
- 4a. GPS Address Library - SendToGPS()......... 21
- 4b. Establishing A Default GPS Router......... 22
- 4c. GPSRouteD................................. 22
- 4c-i. Configuration...................... 23
- 4d. Multicast Address Resolution Protocol (MARP) 23
- 4e. Internet GPS Management Protocol (IGPSMP). 24
- 5. Working Without GPS Information................... 25
- 5a. Users Without GPS Modules................. 25
- 5b. Buildings block GPS radio frequencies
- What then?................................ 25
- 6. Application Layer Solution........................ 25
- 7. Reliability....................................... 26
- 8. Security Considerations........................... 27
- 9. References........................................ 27
- 10. Authors' Addresses................................ 27
-
- 1. Introduction
-
- In the near future GPS will be widely used allowing a broad variety
- of location dependent services such as direction giving, navigation,
- etc. In this document we propose a family of protocols and addressing
- methods to integrate GPS into the Internet Protocol to enable the
- creation of location dependent services such as:
-
- o Multicasting selectively only to specific geographical
- regions defined by latitude and longitude. For example,
- sending an emergency message to everyone who is currently
- in a specific area, such as a building or train station.
-
- o Providing a given service only to clients who are within a
- certain geographic range from the server (which may be mobile
- itself), say within 2 miles.
-
- o Advertising a given service in a range restricted way, say,
- within 2 miles from the server,
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Imielinski & Navas Experimental [Page 2]
-
- RFC 2009 GPS-Based Addressing and Routing November 1996
-
-
- o Providing contiguous information services for mobile users
- when information depends on the user's location. In
- particular providing location dependent book-marks, which
- provides the user with any important information which
- happens to be local (within a certain range) possibly
- including other mobile servers.
-
- The solutions which we present are flexible (scalable) in terms of
- the target accuracy of the GPS. We also discuss cases when GPS cannot
- be used (like inside buildings).
-
- The main challenge is to integrate the concept of physical location
- into the current design of the Internet which relies on logical
- addressing. We see the following general families of solutions:
-
- a) Unicast IP routing extended to deal with GPS addresses
-
- b) GPS-Multicast solution
-
- c) Application Layer Solution using extended DNS
-
- The first two solutions are presented in this memo. We only sketch
- the third solution.
-
- 1b. General Architecture
-
- We will assume a general cellular architecture with base stations
- called Mobile Support Stations (MSS). We will consider a wide variety
- of cells, including outdoor and indoor cells. We will discuss both
- cases when the mobile client has a GPS card on his machine and cases
- when the GPS card does not work (i.e. - inside buildings).
-
- We will assume that each MSS covers a cell with a well defined range
- specified as a polygon of spatial coordinates and that the MSS is
- aware of its own range.
-
- 1c. Scenarios of Usage and Interface Issues
-
- Below, we list some possible scenarios of usage for the geographic
- messaging.
-
- Consider an example situation, of an area of land near a river.
- During a severe rain storm, the local authorities may wish to send a
- flood warning to all people living within a hundred meters of the
- river.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Imielinski & Navas Experimental [Page 3]
-
- RFC 2009 GPS-Based Addressing and Routing November 1996
-
-
- For the interface to such messaging system we propose to use a zoom-
- able map similar to the U.S. Census Bureau's Tiger Map Service. This
- map would allow a user to view a geographical area at varying degrees
- of magnitude. He could then use a pointing device, such as a mouse,
- to draw a bounding polygon around the area which will receive the
- message to be sent. The computer would then translate the drawn
- polygon into GPS coordinates and use those coordinates when sending
- and routing the message. Geographical regions specified using this
- zoom-able map could be stored and recalled at a later time. This
- zoom-able map is analogous to the IP address books found in many
- email programs.
-
- To continue with the above example, local officials would call up a
- map containing the river in danger of overflowing. They would then
- hand-draw a bounding polygon around all of the areas at least a
- hundred yards from the river. They would specify this to be the
- destination for a flood warning email to all residents in the area.
- The warning email would then be sent. Similar applications include
- traffic management (for example, reaching vehicles which are stuck in
- traffic) and security enforcement.
-
- Other applications involve general client server applications where
- servers are selected on the basis of the geographic distance. For
- example, one may be interested in finding out all car dealers within
- 2 miles from his/her location. This leads to an extension of the Web
- concept in which location and distance play important roles in
- selecting information. We are currently in the process of
- implementing location dependent book-marks (hot lists) in which pages
- associated with static and mobile servers which are present within a
- certain distance from the client are displayed on the client's
- terminal.
-
- 2. Addressing Model
-
- Two-dimensional GPS positioning offers latitude and longitude
- information as a four dimensional vector:
-
- <Direction, hours, minutes, seconds>
-
- where Direction is one of the four basic values: N, S, W, E; hours
- ranges from 0 to 180 (for latitude) and 0 to 90 for longitude, and,
- finally, minutes and seconds range from 0 to 60.
-
- Thus <W, 122, 56, 89> is an example of longitude and <N, 85, 66, 43>
- is an example of latitude.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Imielinski & Navas Experimental [Page 4]
-
- RFC 2009 GPS-Based Addressing and Routing November 1996
-
-
- Four bytes of addressing space (one byte for each of the four
- dimensions) are necessary to store latitude and four bytes are also
- sufficient to store longitude. Thus eight bytes total are necessary
- to address the whole surface of earth with precision down to 0.1
- mile! Notice that if we desired precision down to 0.001 mile (1.8
- meters) then we would need just five bytes for each component, or ten
- bytes together for the full address (as military versions provide).
-
- The future version of IP (IP v6) will certainly have a sufficient
- number of bits in its addressing space to provide an address for even
- smaller GPS addressable units. In this proposal, however, we assume
- the current version of IP (IP v4) and we make sure that we manage the
- addressing space more economically than that. We will call the
- smallest GPS addressable unit a GPS-square.
-
- 2a. Using GPS for Destination Addresses
-
- A destination GPS address would be represented by one of the
- following:
-
- o Some closed polygon such as:
-
- circle( center point, radius )
-
- polygon( point1, point2, point3, ... , pointn)
-
- where each point would be expressed using GPS-square
- addresses. This notation would send a message to anyone
- within the specified geographical area defined by the closed
- polygon.
-
- o site-name as a geographic access path
-
- This notation would simulate the postal mail service. In
- this manner, a message can be sent to a specific site by
- specifying its location in terms of real-world names
- such as the name of a specific site, city, township,
- county, state, etc. This format would make use of the
- directory service detailed later.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Imielinski & Navas Experimental [Page 5]
-
- RFC 2009 GPS-Based Addressing and Routing November 1996
-
-
- For example, if we were to send a message to city hall in Fresno,
- California, we could send it by specifying either a bounding polygon
- or the mail address. If we specify a bounding polygon, then we could
- specify the GPS limits of the city hall as a series of connected
- lines that form a closed polygon surrounding it. Since we have a
- list of connected lines, we just have to record the endpoints of the
- lines. Therefore the address of the city hall in Fresno could look
- like:
-
- polygon([N 45 58 23, W 34 56 12], [N 23 45 56, W 12 23 34], ... )
-
- Alternatively, since city hall in Fresno is a well-defined
- geographical area, it would be simpler to merely name the
- destination. This would be done by specifying "postal-like" address
- such as city_hall.Fresno.California.USA.
-
- For "ad hoc" specified areas such as, say a quad between 5th and 6th
- Avenue and 43 and 46 street in New York, the polygon addressing will
- be used.
-
- Unfortunately, we will not be able to assume that we have enough
- addressing space available in the IP packet addressing space to
- address all GPS squares. Instead we will propose a solution which is
- flexible in terms of the smallest GPS addressable units which we call
- atoms. In our solution, a smaller available addressing space (in the
- IP packet) will translate into bigger atoms. Obviously, we can use
- as precise addressing as we want to in the body of the geographic
- messages - the space limitations apply only to the IP addressing
- space.
-
- By a geographic address we mean an IP address assigned to a
- geographic area or point of interest. Our solution will be flexible
- in terms of the geographic addressing space.
-
- Below, we will use the following two terms:
-
- o Atoms: for smallest geographic areas which have
- geographic address.
-
- Thus, atoms could be as small as GPS squares but could be
- larger
-
- o Partitions: These are larger, geographical areas, which will
- also have a geographic address. A state, county, town etc.
- may constitute a partition. A partition will contain a number
- of atoms.
-
-
-
-
-
- Imielinski & Navas Experimental [Page 6]
-
- RFC 2009 GPS-Based Addressing and Routing November 1996
-
-
- Here are some examples of possible atoms and partitions:
-
- o A rectangle, defined by truncating either longitude or
- latitude part of the GPS address by skipping one or more
- least significant digits
-
- o A circle, centered in a specific GPS address with a
- prespecified radius.
-
- o Irregular shapes such as administrative domains: states,
- counties, townships, boroughs, cities etc
-
- Partitions and Atoms (which are of course special atomic partitions)
- will therefore have geographic addresses which will be used by
- routers. Areas of smaller size than atoms, or of "irregular shape"
- will not have corresponding geographic addresses and will have to
- handled with the help of application layer.
-
- 3. Routing
-
- Let us now describe the suggested routing schemes responsible for
- delivering a message to any geographical destination.
-
- We will distinguish between two legs of the connection from the
- sender to the receiver: the first leg from the sender to the MSS
- (base station) and the second leg from the MSS to the receiver
- residing in its cell. Our two solutions will differ on the first leg
- of the connection and use the same options for the second leg, which
- we call "last mile".
-
- 3a. GPS-Multicast Routing Scheme
-
- Here, we discuss the first leg of routing: from the sender to the
- MSS. We start with the multicasting solution.
-
- Each partition and atom is mapped to a multicast address. The exact
- form of this mapping is discussed further in this subsection. We
- first sketch the basic idea.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Imielinski & Navas Experimental [Page 7]
-
- RFC 2009 GPS-Based Addressing and Routing November 1996
-
-
- This solution provides flexible mix of the multicast and application
- level filtering for the geographic addressing. The key idea here is
- to approximate the addressing polygon of the smallest partition which
- contains it and using the multicast address corresponding to that
- partition as the IP address of that message. The original polygon is
- a part of the packet's body and the exact matching is done on the
- application layer in the second leg of the route.
-
- How is the multicast routing performed?
-
- 3a-i. Multicast Trees
-
- The basic idea for the first level of routing using multicast is to
- have each base station join multicast groups for all partitions which
- intersect its range. Thus, MSS is not only aware of its own range
- but also has a complete information about system defined partitions
- which its range intersects. This information can be obtained upon MSS
- installation, from the geographic database stored as a part of DNS.
-
- If the proper multicast trees are constructed (using for example link
- state multicast protocol) than the sender can simply determine the
- multicast address of the partition which covers the original polygon
- he wants to send his message to, use this multicast address as the
- address on the packet and put the original polygon specification into
- the packet content. In this way, multicast will assure that the
- packet will be delivered to the proper MSS.
-
- Example
-
- For instance the MSS in New Brunswick may have its range intersect
- the following atoms and partitions: Busch, College Avenue, Douglass
- and Livingston Campuses of Rutgers University (atoms), New Brunswick
- downtown area (atom), the Middlesex county partition and the NJ state
- partition. Each of these atoms and partitions will be mapped into a
- multicast address and the New Brunswick's MSS will have to join all
- such multicast groups.
-
- The message will be then specified and sent as follows:
-
- The user will obtain the map of the New Brunswick area possibly from
- the DNS extended properly with relevant maps. He will specify the
- intended destination by drawing a polygon on the map which will be
- translated into the sequence of coordinates. In the same time the
- polygon will be "approximated" by the smallest partition which
- contains that polygon. The multicast address corresponding to that
- partition will be the IP address for packets carrying our message.
- The exact destination polygon will be a part of each packet's body.
- In this way the packet will be delivered using multicast routing to
-
-
-
- Imielinski & Navas Experimental [Page 8]
-
- RFC 2009 GPS-Based Addressing and Routing November 1996
-
-
- the set of MSS which are members of the specified multicast group
- (that is all MSS whose ranges intersect the given partition). Each
- such MSS now will follow the "last mile" routing which is described
- in detail, further in the proposal. Briefly speaking, the MSS could
- then multicast the message further on the same multicast address and
- the client will perform the final filtering o application layer,
- matching its location (obtained from GPS) with the polygon specified
- in the packet's body. Other solutions based entirely on multicasting
- are also possible as described below.
-
- End_Example
-
- However, things cannot be as simple as described. For such a large
- potential number of multicast groups if we build entire multicast
- trees, the routing tables could be too large. Fortunately it is not
- necessary to build complete multicast trees. Indeed, it in not
- important to know precise location of each atom in California, from a
- remote location, say in NJ.
-
- Thus, we modify our simple solution by implementing the following
- intuition:
-
- The smaller is the size of the partition (atom) the more locally is
- the information about that partition (atom) propagated.
-
- Thus, only multicast group membership for very large partitions will
- be propagated across the whole country.
-
- For example, a base station in Menlo Park, California can intersect
- several atoms ) and several larger which cover Menlo Park, such say
- a partition which covers the entire San Mateo county, next which
- cover the entire California and finally next which may cover the
- entire west coast. This base station will have to join multicast
- groups which correspond to all these rectangles. However, only the
- information about multicast group corresponding to the West Coast
- partition will be propagated to the East Coast routers.
-
- However, a simple address aggregation scheme in which only a "more
- significant portion" of address propagates far away would not work.
- Indeed, in this case a remote router, say in NJ, could have several
- aggregate links leading to California - in fact, in the worst case,
- all its links could point to California since it could have received
- a routing information to some location in California on any of those
- links.
-
- To avoid this, for each partition we distinguish one or a few MSS
- which act as designated router(s) for that partition. For example,
- the California partition, may have only three designated routers, one
-
-
-
- Imielinski & Navas Experimental [Page 9]
-
- RFC 2009 GPS-Based Addressing and Routing November 1996
-
-
- in Eureka, another in Sacramento and yet another in LA. Only the
- routing entries from the designated routers would be aggregated into
- the aggregate address for California. Information coming from other
- city routers will simply be dropped and not aggregated at all. This,
- in addition to a standard selection of the shortest routes, would
- restrict the number of links which lead to an aggregate address. In
- particular, when there is only one designated router per partition,
- there would only be one aggregate link in any router. This could lead
- to non-optimal routing but will solve the problem of redundant links.
-
- Even with a designated routers, it may happen that the same packet
- will arrive at a given base station more than once due to different
- alternative routes. Thus, a proper mechanism for discarding redundant
- copies of the same packet should still be in place. In fact, due to
- the possible intersections between ranges of the base stations the
- possibility of receiving redundant copies of the same packets always
- exist and has to be dealt with as a part of any solution.
-
- 3a-ii. Determining the geographic Multicast Addressing
-
- Here we describe more specifically, the proposed addressing scheme
- and the corresponding routing.
-
- The addressing will be hierarchical. We will use the following
- convention - each multicast address corresponding to a partitions or
- an atoms will have the following format:
-
- 1111.GPS.S.C.x
-
- where GPS is the specific code corresponding to the geographic
- addressing subspace of the overall multicast addressing space. The S,
- C and x parts are described below:
-
- S - Encoding of the state.
- Each state partition will have the address S/0/0.
-
- C - County within a state.
- Each county partition having the address S/C/0.
-
- x - Atom within a county.
-
- where 0's refer to the sequences of 0 bits on positions corresponding
- to the "C part" and "x part" of address.
-
- For example if GPS part is 6 bit,s which gives 1/64 of existing
- multicast addresses to the geographic addressing we have 22 bits
- left. The S part will take first 6 bits, C part next 6 bits (say)
- and then the next 10 bits encode different atoms (within a county).
-
-
-
- Imielinski & Navas Experimental [Page 10]
-
- RFC 2009 GPS-Based Addressing and Routing November 1996
-
-
- Thus, in our terminology the proposed addressing scheme has two types
- of partitions: states and counties.
-
- We will assume that the GPS network will consist of all base stations
- (MSS) in addition the rest of the fixed network infrastructure. The
- designated GPS routers however, will only be selected from the
- population of MSS. Specifically, there will be state dedicated and
- county dedicated routers.
-
- The concept of the designation will be implemented as follows. From
- the set of all MSS, only certain MSS will play a role of designated
- routers for county and state partitions. Non-designated MSS will
- only join multicast groups which correspond to the GPS atoms but not
- GPS partitions that they intersect. The MSS which is a designated
- router for a county partition will join the multicast group of the
- county in which it is located, but not the state. Finally the state
- designated router will also join the multicast address corresponding
- to the state it is located in.
-
- 3a-iii. Building Multicast Trees
-
- We assume that each router has geographic information attached to it
- - in the same format as we use for multicast mapping, S/C/x - it
- encodes the atom that contains the router.
-
- The multicast tree is built by a router propagating its multicast
- memberships to the neighboring routers. A given router will only
- retain certain addresses though, to follow the intuition of not
- retaining a specific information which is far away.
-
- This is done as follows: the router (not necessarily the MSS based
- router) with the address S/C/x will only retain addresses about
- S'/0/0, S/C'/0 for S' and C' different from S and C and S/C/x for all
- x. Thus, it will drop all the addresses of the form S'/C'/y for all
- S' different that S except those with C'=0 and y=0, as well as all
- the addresses of the form S/C'/y with C' different from C except
- those with y=0. Hence, these addresses will not be forwarded any
- further either.
-
- Thus, notice that only the information coming from designated routers
- will be forwarded further away, since the non-designated routers are
- not allowed to join the multicast groups which correspond to the
- states and counties. Consequently, their multicast membership
- information will be not be propagated.
-
- In this way a router at S/C/x will not bother about specific
- locations within S'/C'/y since they are "too far".
-
-
-
-
- Imielinski & Navas Experimental [Page 11]
-
- RFC 2009 GPS-Based Addressing and Routing November 1996
-
-
- Notice that this service may not be provided everywhere so we may not
- have to use all multicast addresses even within those assigned for
- geographic addresses.
-
- Notice also that all of this is flexible - if we have more multicast
- addresses available (IP v 6) we will get more precise addressing due
- to smaller atoms.
-
- 3a-iv. GPS Routing
-
- Given a packet we always look for the "closest" match in the routing
- table. If there is a complete match we follow such a link, if not we
- follow the address with the x-part 0'd in (county address) if there
- is none with the county which agrees with the destination county than
- we look at the entry which agrees with the state part of the
- destination address.
-
- 3a-v. DNS Issues
-
- How does the client find out the multicast address on which the
- packet is to be sent? We assume that the local name server has the
- complete state/county hierarchy and that each county map can be
- provided possibly with the "grid" of atoms and partitions already
- clearly marked.
-
- Points of interests within a county can be attached multicast address
- just as atoms. Then a given base station would have to join multicast
- groups of the points of interests that it covers.
-
- The final stage is for the receiver to look at the polygon (point of
- interest) which is encoded in the body of the multicast packet and
- decide on the basis of its own GPS location if this packet is to be
- received or not. Doing it on the application layer simplifies many
- routing issues. There is a tradeoff, however, specially when we have
- very short S/C/x addresses and base stations which do not cover the
- given polygon in fact are reached unnecessarily. This may happen and
- it needs to be determined what is the number of the multicast
- addresses which are necessary to reduce this "false" alarms to the
- minimum.
-
- 3a-vi. Estimations
-
- Assume average cell size of, say, 2km x 2km and the average state
- size: say 200,000 square km, the average county size: say 4,000
- square km.
-
- A reasonable size of the atom is around the size of the cell since
- then we do not hit wrong cells too often.
-
-
-
- Imielinski & Navas Experimental [Page 12]
-
- RFC 2009 GPS-Based Addressing and Routing November 1996
-
-
- Therefore we need the x addressing part of the S/C/x to encode
- 4,000/4 cells: 1.000 atoms. Thus we need 10 bits for x part. With 6
- bits for the state and 6 bits for the county that gives 22 bits which
- is 1/64 of the total IP v4 multicast addressing space.
-
- With IPv6 we will have, of course, much more addressing space which
- we can use for the GPS multicast routing.
-
- 3b. "Last Mile" Routing
-
- Multicasting will be used for the last mile routing in both our
- solutions (i.e the one just discussed and the geometric routing
- solution described next), but in different ways.
-
- 3b-i. Application Level Filtering
-
- The MSS will forward the geographic message on its wireless link
- under a multicast address. This multicast address will either be the
- same for all locations in the range of the MSS's cell or, there will
- be several addresses corresponding to atoms which intersect the given
- cell. Additionally, a complete GPS address (for example in the form
- of the polygon) will be provided in the body of the packet and the
- exact address matching will be performed on the application layer.
- The receiver, knowing its GPS position uses it to match against the
- polygon address. The GPS position can be obtained by the receiver
- either from the GPS card or, indoors, from the indoor base station
- which itself knows its GPS position as a part of configuration file.
-
- 3b-ii. Multicast Filtering
-
- In multicast level filtering, the base station assigns a temporary
- multicast address to the addressing polygon in a message. It will
- send out a directive on the cell's specially assigned multicast
- address. All mobile clients who reside in that cell are members of
- that special multicast group (one per MSS). The directive sent by the
- MSS will contain the pair consisting of the temporary multicast
- address together with the polygon. To improve the reliability this
- message will be multicast several times. The clients, knowing their
- GPS positions will than join the temporary multicast groups if their
- current locations are within the advertised polygon. The MSS will
- then send out the real message using the temporary multicast address.
-
- The temporary multicast address would be cached for a period of time.
- If more packets for the same polygon arrive in a short period of
- time, they will be sent out on the same multicast address. If not,
- then the multicast address is dropped and purged from the cache.
- Filtering on the client's station is then performed entirely on the
- IP level. This solution introduces additional delay (needed to join
-
-
-
- Imielinski & Navas Experimental [Page 13]
-
- RFC 2009 GPS-Based Addressing and Routing November 1996
-
-
- the temporary multicast group) but reduces the number of irrelevant
- packets received by the client. This especially important for very
- long messages.
-
- 3b-iii. Computers on Fixed Networks
-
- Fixed-network computers should also monitor all of the mandatory
- multicast addresses for their site and GPS square. In this manner,
- the fixed computers will also receive messages sent to specific GPS-
- addresses.
-
- Modified base stations would still be in charge of multicasting the
- messages to the computers. These base stations would have the same
- GPS-routing functionality as the mobile computer base stations.
- Their main difference would be that the mobile computer base stations
- would use radio frequencies to multicast their messages and the fixed
- network base stations use the local Ethernet or Token Ring network.
-
- The next scheme differs from the GPS multicast scheme described above
- only on the first leg of the route, from the sender to the MSS. The
- "last mile" from the MSS to the final destination will have the same
- options as described above.
-
- 3c. Geometric Routing Scheme (GEO)
-
- The Geometric Routing Scheme (GEO) uses the polygonal geographic
- destination information in the GPScast header directly for routing.
- GEO routing is going to be implemented in the Internet Protocol (IP)
- Network layer in a manner similar to the way multicast routing was
- first implemented. That is, a virtual network which uses GPS
- addresses for routing will be overlayed onto the current IP
- internetwork. We would accomplish this by creating our own GPS-
- address routers. These routers would use tunnels to ship data
- packets between them and between the routers and base stations.
-
- 3c-i. Routing Overview
-
- Sending a GPScast message involves three steps: sending the message,
- shuttling the message between routers, and receiving the message.
-
- Sending a GPScast message is very similar to sending a UDP datagram.
- The programmer would use the GPScast library routine SendToGPS().
- Among other parameters, this routine will accept the GPS polygonal
- destination address and the body of the message. The SendToGPS()
- routine will encapsulate the GPScast message in a UDP datagram and
- send it to the class E address 240.0.0.0. Previously, the system
- administrator will have specified in the /etc/rc.local or /etc/rc.ip
- file a route command that will specify that packets with the address
-
-
-
- Imielinski & Navas Experimental [Page 14]
-
- RFC 2009 GPS-Based Addressing and Routing November 1996
-
-
- 240.0.0.0 will instead be sent to the address of the local GPS
- router. This will have the effect of sending the datagram to the
- nearest GPS router.
-
- Before explaining how the GPS routers shuttle the GPScast message to
- its destination, an introduction to routers and their different parts
- is in order. For scalability purposes, GPS routers are arranged in a
- hierarchical fashion. Each layer would correspond to a distinct
- geographic area, such as a state or a city. At the top would be
- country-wide routers in charge of moving messages from one end of the
- country to another. At the bottom would be campus or department
- routers in charge of moving messages between the base stations. See
- Figure 1.
-
-
- Country-Router(s)
- / \
- State-Router(s)
- / \
- City-Router(s)
- / \
- Router Router
- / | \ | \
- Base Base Base Base Base
-
- Figure 1: Hierarchy of routers.
-
- A GPS router essentially consists of three parts: a service area
- table containing the geographic area serviced by the router and each
- of its hierarchical children, a hashed cache of previous actions, and
- a table containing the IP addresses of at least the router's children
- and the router's parent. In the case of a bottom-layer campus
- router, the service area table will contain polygons describing the
- geographic reach of each child base station's cell. The polygon
- created from the union of all of the router's child base stations'
- polygons defines the service area of the router.
-
- Once the datagram arrives at a GPS router, the router strips the
- datagram off, thereby, leaving it with the original GPScast message.
- First the router must determine if it services any part of the area
- of the destination polygon. To do this, the router finds the
- intersection between the destination polygon and the polygon
- describing the router's service area. The polygon intersection
- algorithm used is described by O'Rourke in his paper, A New Linear
- Algorithm for Intersecting Convex Polygons. This algorithm requires
- order N-squared time in the worst case. If the intersection result
- is null, then the router simply sends the message to its parent
- router.
-
-
-
- Imielinski & Navas Experimental [Page 15]
-
- RFC 2009 GPS-Based Addressing and Routing November 1996
-
-
- ------ Destination Polygon
- | A |
- --------------
- | | B | | Router's Service Area Polygon
- --------------
- | C |
- ------
-
- Figure 2: Polygon Difference
-
- However, if the result is not null, then the router does service the
- area described by the intersection polygon. The router now subtracts
- its service area from the destination polygon and sends the rest to
- it's parent router. This subtraction step is actually a by-product
- of the intersection algorithm. Using the example in Figure 2, the
- destination polygon and the router's service area polygon intersect
- at the region labeled B. Therefore, the router will subtract out the
- B section and send the remaining sections A and C to its parent
- router.
-
- Continuing with the example, the router now uses the intersection
- polygon B to to determine which base station (or stations) will
- receive the GPScast message. The router finds the intersection
- between the region B and the polygon of each base station's cell.
- Those base station polygons which intersect the region B will be sent
- the GPScast message. Processes on Mobile Hosts serviced by these
- base stations will now use the routine RecvFromGPS() to receive the
- GPScast message.
-
- 3c-ii. Supporting Long-Duration GPScasts
-
- Most likely, there will be a need to support sending real-time
- continuous media to a GPS destination. This continuous media could
- be an audio GPScast or a video GPScast. This would require that
- jitter be reduced in order to minimize disturbing artifacts in the
- audio or video playback. Continually checking the destination
- geometry of each packet would incur unnecessary delays and may
- promote jitter.
-
- Therefore, the router will keep a hashed cache of the latest GPScast
- packets and their destinations. Each cache item will be hashed using
- the Sender Identification included in the header of GPScast messages
- as the key. Each cache item will contain a time stamp and a list of
- the next hops for that GPScast. When the time stamp exceeds a
- certain limit, then the cache item will be dropped. The list of next
- hops is a list of the IP addresses of the base stations, peer
- routers, and parent router which are to receive a copy of the GPScast
- messages.
-
-
-
- Imielinski & Navas Experimental [Page 16]
-
- RFC 2009 GPS-Based Addressing and Routing November 1996
-
-
- When a router receives a GPScast packet, it will use the incoming
- packet's Sender Id as a key into the hashed cache. If this is not
- the first packet to arrive for this destination and if the timer on
- the hash table entry has not yet expired, then the hashed cache will
- return a list of all of the destination addresses to which copies of
- the packet must be sent. Copies of the packet are sent to all of
- these destinations and the hash entry's time stamp is updated.
-
- If no hash table entry is found (i.e.- this is the first packet
- encountered for this destination address), then the normal geometry
- checking routine would take over. A new cache entry is made
- recording all of the next-hop destination addresses of the GPScast.
- In this manner, if several other packets with the same GPS
- destination follow this first packet, the router can use the hash
- table to look-up the destination base stations instead of calculating
- it using geometry.
-
- 3c-iii. Discovering A Router's Service Area
-
- When the router is initiated, it will consult its configuration file.
- One of the items it will find in the file will be the multicast
- address of the base station group to which all of its child base
- stations are members. The router will join this group and then send
- out Service Area Query messages to this multicast group periodically
- to discover and to refresh its knowledge of its children base
- stations and the geographical areas serviced by them.
-
- Queries are issued infrequently (no more than once every five
- minutes) so as to keep the IGPSMP overhead on the network very low.
- However, since the query is issued using unreliable multicast
- datagrams, there is a chance that some base stations may not receive
- the query. This is important in two cases: when a child node fails
- and when a router first boots up. The case of a failed child node
- will be explained later. However, when a router first boots up, it
- can issue several queries in a small amount of time in order to
- guarantee that base stations will receive the query and to,
- therefore, build up its knowledge about its child base stations
- quickly.
-
- Base stations respond to a Service Area Query by issuing a Service
- Area Report. This report is issued on the same multicast group
- address that all of the base stations have joined. The report
- contains the geographical service area of the base station. In order
- to avoid a sudden congestion of reports being sent at the same time,
- each base station will initiate a random delay timer. Only when the
- timer expires will the base station send its report.
-
-
-
-
-
- Imielinski & Navas Experimental [Page 17]
-
- RFC 2009 GPS-Based Addressing and Routing November 1996
-
-
- For every base station that responds, the router will create an IP
- tunnel between it and the base station. This tunnel will carry the
- GPScast packet traffic between the base station and the router. Each
- responding base station and its geographic area of service will also
- be included in the router's geometric routing table as a possible
- destination for GPScast packets. Any base station that does not
- respond for ten continuous Service Area Queries will be considered
- unreachable and will be dropped from the routing table.
-
- 3c-iv. Hierarchical Router Structure and Multicast Groups
-
- R5----------------------R6
- / \ / \
- R1---------R2 R3---------R4
- / | \ / | \ / | \ / | \
- b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6 b7 b8 b9 b10 b11 b12
-
- Figure 3: Two peer routers (R5 and R6) cooperatively servicing four
- child routers (R1 - R4).
-
- For scalability purposes, a hierarchy of routers is used to transport
- messages from a sender to a receiver. Each layer of peer routers
- would have its own multicast group address for the exchange of
- Service Area Queries and Reports between the peer routers. However,
- routers in distinct subtrees need not know about the routers in other
- subtrees. Therefore, multicast group addresses will also differ
- between hierarchy subtrees. See figure 3. For instance, routers R1
- and R2 would share a multicast group and would know about each other.
- At the same time, routers R3 and R4 would share a different multicast
- group and would know about each other. However, routers R1 and R2
- would not know about R3 and R4, and vice versa.
-
- But how will the router know the location and number of its peer
- routers and who its parent router is? As mentioned before, the
- router consults its configuration file upon start-up. Included in
- this configuration file will be the the address of its parent router
- and the multicast group address that the peer routers will use. This
- peer multicast group address will be used in the same manner as the
- base station multicast group address. It will be used to send and
- receive Service Area Queries and Reports between the parent router
- and the peer routers. There is only one difference. When a router
- sends a Service Area Report, in addition to reporting its
- geographical service area, a router will include the multicast
- address of its children base stations. The reason for this is
- explained in the router-failure recovery scheme described below.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Imielinski & Navas Experimental [Page 18]
-
- RFC 2009 GPS-Based Addressing and Routing November 1996
-
-
- 3c-v. Routing Optimizations
-
- The optimization described here attempts to reduce the latency of a
- GPScast. It does so by reducing the the number of hops a packet must
- traverse before finding its destination. The intuition behind the
- idea is this: instead of going to the parent router and then to the
- sibling, simply go to the sibling directly. As an additional
- benefit, this method prevents the parent router from becoming a
- bottleneck or a point of failure in the routing scheme.
-
- In this optimization, when a router attempts to determine who will
- receive the GPS packet, it considers its peer routers as if they were
- also its children in the routing hierarchy. This means that the
- router will consider its service area to be the union of the service
- areas of its children and its peer routers. Also, when the
- destination polygon intersects the router's service area polygon, the
- router will forward a copy of the GPScast packet to any child or peer
- router whose geographic service area contains or touches the packet's
- GPS destination polygon.
-
- However, before it sends a copy of the packet to a peer router, it
- first finds the polygon:
-
- P = D /\ S
-
- where D stands for the packet's destination GPS polygon, S is the
- polygon representing the service area of the peer router, and P is
- the polygon that represents the intersection of D and S. The polygon
- P is substituted for the destination polygon D in the packet and only
- then is the packet forwarded to the peer router. This is necessary
- because the peer router will be using that same routing algorithm.
- Therefore, if the peer router receives a packet with the original
- destination polygon D, it will also route copies of the packet to all
- of its qualifying peer routers causing a chain of packet copies being
- bounced back and forth.
-
- 3c-vi. Router-Failure Recovery Scheme
-
- In the case of a router failure, the system should be able to route
- around the failed router and continue to service GPScast messages.
- The responsibility of detecting whether a router has failed or not
- falls to the parent router. Using Figure 3 as an example router
- hierarchy, the parent router R5 periodically sends out Service Area
- Query IGPSMP messages on its children's multicast group address.
- Thus, the child routers R1 and R2 will both receive this query.
- Normally, both routers will respond with a Service Area Report
- message. This message contains a polygon describing their service
- areas and the multicast group address of their children.
-
-
-
- Imielinski & Navas Experimental [Page 19]
-
- RFC 2009 GPS-Based Addressing and Routing November 1996
-
-
- However, if a router, R1, does not respond to ten continuous queries,
- then it must be considered to have failed. Upon detecting this, the
- parent router R5 will send a Set Service Area message to the child
- router, R2 telling it to assume responsibility for the base stations
- underneath the failed R1 router. In this Set Service Area message,
- the parent router includes the multicast group address of R1's
- children. The R2 router uses this multicast address to learn the
- service areas and IP addresses of R1's children. The R2 router then
- issues a Service Area Report advertising its new enlarged service
- area responsibilities. All peer and parent routers will then update
- their routing tables to include this new information. When the
- failed router, R1, restarts, it will declare that it is alive and
- that it is again servicing its area. All routers will then again
- update their routing tables.
-
- In the case that there is no parent router, such as at the top of the
- routing hierarchy, then each peer router will keep track of its
- neighbors. If a neighbor router fails, then the first neighbor
- router to declare that it is taking over the base stations for the
- failed router will take responsibility. The rest continues as
- before.
-
- 3c-vii. Domain Name Service Issues
-
- Domain Name Servers (DNS) could be used to facilitate the use of GPS
- geographic addressing for sites of interest. The aim is to describe
- specific geographic sites in a more natural and real-world manner
- using a postal-service like addressing method. Essentially, the DNS
- would resolve a postal-service like address, such as
- City_Hall.New_York_City.New_York, into the IP address of the GPS
- router responsible for that site. The GPS router would then route
- the message to all available recipients in the site.
-
- The DNS would be used when a message is sent using the
-
- site-code.city-code.state-code.country-code
-
- addressing scheme. The DNS would evaluate the address in reverse
- starting with the country code, then the state code, etc. This is
- the same method used currently by the IP DNS service to return IP
- addresses based on the country or geographic domains.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Imielinski & Navas Experimental [Page 20]
-
- RFC 2009 GPS-Based Addressing and Routing November 1996
-
-
- 4. Router Daemon and Host Library
-
- 4a. GPS Address Library - SendToGPS()
-
- A library for GPS address routing will be constructed. The main
- routines contained in this library will be the SendToGPS() and
- RecvFromGPS() commands. SendToGPS() has the following syntax:
-
- SendToGPS(int socket, GPS-Address *address, char *message, int size)
-
- where socket is a previously created datagram socket, address is a
- filled GPS-Address structure with the following form:
- typedef _GPS-Address {
- enum { point, circle, polygon } type;
- char *mail-address;
- struct
- {
- enum { North, South, West, East } dir;
- int hours, minutes, seconds;
- } *points;
-
- } GPS-Address;
-
- and message and size specify the actual message and its size. The
- SendToGPS() routine will take the GPS-addressed message, encapsulate
- it in an IP packet, and then send it as a normal IP datagram. The
- message is encapsulated in the following manner:
-
- --------------------------------------------------------
- | IP Header with destination address set to 240.0.0.0 |
- --------------------------------------------------------
- | Sender Identifier |
- --------------------------------------------------------
- | Address Type - Circle|Polygon |
- --------------------------------------------------------
- | Actual GPS Address (see below) |
- --------------------------------------------------------
- | Body of Message |
- --------------------------------------------------------
-
- where the Sender Identifier would consist of a combination of the
- sender's process id, host IP address, and the center of the
- destination polygon. The Actual Address would be one of the
- following:
-
- circle - single GPS address and range measured in centiminutes.
-
-
-
-
-
- Imielinski & Navas Experimental [Page 21]
-
- RFC 2009 GPS-Based Addressing and Routing November 1996
-
-
- polygon - list of GPS addresses terminated by the impossible
- address: N 255 255 255.
-
- RecvFromGPS() has the following syntax:
-
- RecvFromGPS(int socket,GPS-Address *address,char *message,int size)
-
- where socket is a previously created datagram socket, address is an
- empty GPS-Address structure, and message and size specify message
- buffer and its size.
-
- 4b. Establishing A Default GPS Router
-
- The default GPS router is determined using the unicast routing table
- found in the UNIX kernel. The local system administrator will have
- previously adjusted the table so that all GPScast messages are sent
- to the local GPS router. However, if there is no route for GPScast
- messages in the table, then all messages will, by default, be sent to
- the default gateway. If the default gateway does not support GPScast
- messages, then all attempts to send a GPScast will return an error.
-
- By default, all GPScast messages will initially have as their
- destination the class E address 240.0.0.0. A route will be added to
- the kernel routing table by the system administrator for this
- address. The route will specify the location of the local GPS
- router. The "route" command will be used to affect the routing table
- and it can be placed in the /etc/rc.local or /etc/rc.ip files so that
- it will take effect each time the computer is booted. For example,
- to specify that GPScast messages addressed to 240.0.0.0 should, by
- default, be sent to the router which resides on a computer on the
- same subnet with local address 128.6.5.53, use the following:
-
- /etc/route add host 240.0.0.0 128.6.5.53 0
-
- If the default destination for GPScast messages is a host that does
- not support GPS addressing, then Network Unreachable errors will be
- returned to any process attempting to route GPScasts through that
- host.
-
- 4c. GPSRouteD
-
- In order to provide the capability of GPS address routing throughout
- an IPv4-based internetwork, special-purpose routers will be created
- to support GPS address routing on top of the current Internet. These
- routers, which will be called GPSRouteD, will use virtual point-to-
- point links called tunnels in order to connect two GPSRouteDs
- together over regular unicast networks. The tunnels work by
- encapsulating the GPS address messages in IP datagrams and then
-
-
-
- Imielinski & Navas Experimental [Page 22]
-
- RFC 2009 GPS-Based Addressing and Routing November 1996
-
-
- transmitting the message to the host on the other end of the tunnel.
- In this manner, the GPS address messages look like normal unicast
- packets to all IPv4 routers in between the two GPS address routers.
- At the end of the tunnel, the receiving GPSRouteD removes the GPS
- address message from the datagram and continues the routing process.
-
- By using tunnels, the GPS routers can be established as a virtual
- internetwork throughout the current Internet without regard for the
- physical properties of the underlying networks. Moreover, the use of
- tunnels means that the host on which the router daemon is running
- need not be connected to more than one subnet in order for the router
- to forward GPS messages. This virtual internetwork would be
- responsible for routing GPS address messages only. This virtual
- network, however, is not intended to be a permanent solution and is
- only intended to provide a means of supporting GPS address routing
- until it gains wider acceptance and support in the Internet
- infrastructure.
-
- 4c-i. Configuration
-
- When a GPSRouteD initially executes, it first checks the file
- /etc/GPSRouteD.conf for configuration commands to add tunnel and
- multicast links to other GPS address routers. There are two kinds of
- configuration commands:
-
- multicast <multicast-address> <peer|child>
-
- tunnel <local-addr> <remote-addr>
- <parent|peer|child|host> <service-area>
-
- The tunnel command is used to create a tunnel between the local host
- on which the GPSRouteD executes and a remote host on which another
- GPSRouteD executes. The tunnel must be set up in the GPSRouteD.conf
- files at both ends before it will be used.
-
- The multicast command tells the router which multicast addresses to
- join. These addresses will carry IGPSMP messages and replies. The
- router will use these IGPSMP messages to build up and keep current
- its own internal routing table.
-
- 4d. Multicast Address Resolution Protocol (MARP)
-
- Of course, this begs the question, how will the individual computers
- know which multicast addresses to join? For example, an MH would
- have to join the multicast address of its current cell so that it can
- receive GPScast messages (using application-level filtering) or
- directions to join other multicast groups (using multicast
- filtering). We have designed a protocol called Multicast Address
-
-
-
- Imielinski & Navas Experimental [Page 23]
-
- RFC 2009 GPS-Based Addressing and Routing November 1996
-
-
- Resolution Protocol (MARP) that works the same way as Reverse Address
- Resolution Protocol (RARP). However, instead of returning the IP
- address of the MH, it will return multicast group address of the cell
- the MH is currently in. The MH would then join this multicast group.
-
- 4e. Internet GPS Management Protocol (IGPSMP)
-
- The Internet GPS Management Protocol (IGPSMP) is used by GPS routers
- to report, query, and inform their router counterparts about their
- geographical service areas. The IGPSMP will also be used to verify
- that routers are correctly functioning.
-
- The vocabulary of IGPSMP will consist of six words:
-
- o set service area - Used by the parent router to set the
- geographic service area of a router. This is needed in
- order to automatically respond to router failure or new
- router boot-up.
-
- o confirm service area - confirms that a router has received
- its service area.
-
- o geographical service area query - This message will be used
- by a router to build up its geographical routing table.
- It is sent to all routers on the same level.
-
-
- o service area report - This message is sent in response to a
- query request. It contains a bounding closed polygon
- described using GPS coordinates which contains the service
- area for the router.
-
- o ping - This message is sent periodically to ascertain whether
- the router is currently functioning properly. Usually sent
- by the parent router in the hierarchy tree.
-
- o alive signal - Usually sent as a reply to the ping message.
- Used by a router to indicate that it is functioning
- correctly. It is also sent immediately after a router
- boots.
-
- All of IGPSMP messages will be sent on an all-routers multicast
- address for a particular hierarchy level. The exact multicast
- address can be set in the router configuration file.
-
- Note that for the GPS-Multicast routing scheme, the time-to-live
- value of the service area reports will be varied in order to control
- the distribution of the information. In GPS-Multicast routing, only
-
-
-
- Imielinski & Navas Experimental [Page 24]
-
- RFC 2009 GPS-Based Addressing and Routing November 1996
-
-
- the multicast group membership for very large partitions will be
- distributed throughout the country. Smaller partition may only be
- distributed to neighbor routers.
-
- 5. Working Without GPS Information
-
- 5a. Users Without GPS Modules
-
- Mobile users without GPS modules can still participate - though at a
- very reduced level. When an MH enters a cell, it can use an MARP to
- discover the local multicast group for that cell or atom. As the
- user roams from cell to cell, the mobile host can keep track of the
- current cell that the user is in and adds or drops the multicast
- groups pertaining to those cells. The user's GPS address can be set
- to be the center of the current cell.
-
- 5b. Buildings block GPS radio frequencies. What then?
-
- Each room can have a radio beacon placed on the ceiling. The beacon
- will be weak enough so that it will not penetrate walls. Each radio
- beacon will have its own GPS-address associated with it which it will
- broadcast. When a mobile user enters a room, his MH will detect the
- beacon and read the beacon's GPS address. The GPS-address of the MH
- will be set to the GPS-address of the beacon. The MH will then use
- this beacon's GPS address in order to perform any message filtering
- that it needs to do. Now the mobile user can have a GPS-address
- associated with him even though he is indoors and his GPS-module is
- useless.
-
- 6. Application Layer Solution
-
- In this subsection we sketch a third solution which relies more
- heavily on the DNS.
-
- In the application layer solution the geographic information is added
- to the DNS which provides the full directory information down to the
- level of the IP address of each base station and its area of coverage
- represented as a polygon of coordinates.
-
- A new first level domain - "geographic" is added to the set of first
- level domains. The second level domain names include states, the
- third, counties and finally, the fourth: polygons of coordinates, or
- so called points of interests. We can also allow, polygons to occur
- as elements of second, third domains to enable sending messages to
- larger areas.
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Imielinski & Navas Experimental [Page 25]
-
- RFC 2009 GPS-Based Addressing and Routing November 1996
-
-
- Thus a typical geographic address can look like
-
- city-hall-Palo-Alto.San-Mateo-County.California.geographic
-
- or
-
- Polygon.San-Mateo-County.California.geographic
-
- where Polygon is a sequence of coordinates.
-
- This geographic address is resolved in a similar way as the standard
- domain addresses are resolved today into a set of IP addresses of
- base stations which cover that geographic area. There are several
- possibilities here:
-
- a. A set of unicast messages is sent to all base stations
- corresponding to the IP addresses returned by the DNS. Each base
- station then forwards the message using either of the two last link
- solutions: application level or network level filtering.
-
- b. All the base stations join the temporary multicast group for the
- geographic area specified in the message. In this way we may avoid
- sending the same message across the same link several times. Thus,
- after the set of relevant base stations is determined by the DNS, the
- temporary multicast group is established and all packets with that
- multicast address are sent on that multicast address.
-
- c. Only one, central to the polygon base station is returned by the
- DNS just as in the IP unicast solution. However that "central" base
- station will have to forward messages to the other base stations
- within the polygon.
-
- Notice that we should distinguish between "small area" and "wide
- area" geographic mail. The "small area" mail will be most common and
- will most likely involve just one base station, favoring a simple
- form of solution (a).
-
- 7. Reliability
-
- Should the geographic messages be acknowledged?
-
- Since we have no control if users are present in the target
- geographic area where the mail is distributed we do not see a need
- for individual acknowledgments from the message recipients. However,
- we believe that the base stations (MSS) covering the target area of
- geographic mail should acknowledge the messages.
-
-
-
-
-
- Imielinski & Navas Experimental [Page 26]
-
- RFC 2009 GPS-Based Addressing and Routing November 1996
-
-
- Typically only a few base stations will be involved since typically
- we will not cover very broad geographic areas anyway. We assume that
- the base stations, additionally to forwarding the the messages on
- their wireless interfaces will buffer them, either to periodically
- multicast them (emergency response) or to provide them to users who
- just entered a cell and download the "emergency stack" of messages
- for that area as a part of the service hand-off protocol.
-
- 8. Security Considerations
-
- Some method of determining who has permission to send messages to a
- large geographical area is needed. For instance, perhaps only the
- mayor of New York City has permission to send a message to all of New
- York City.
-
- 9. References
-
- Deering, S., "Host Extensions for IP Multicasting", STD 5, RFC 1112,
- August 1989.
-
- S. Deering. Multicast Routing in a Datagram Internetwork. Ph.D.
- Thesis, Stanford University, (December 1991).
-
- J. O'Rourke, C.B. Chien, T. Olson, and D. Naddor, A new linear
- algorithm for intersecting convex polygons, Computer Graphics and
- Image Processing 19, 384-391 (1982).
-
- J. Ioannidis, D. Duchamp, and G. Q. Maquire. IP-Based Protocols for
- Mobile Internetworking. Proc. of ACM SIGCOMM Symposium on
- Communication, Architectures and Protocols, pages 235-245,
- (September, 1991).
-
- 10. Authors' Addresses
-
- Tomasz Imielinski and Julio C. Navas
- Computer Science Department
- Busch Campus
- Rutgers, The State University
- Piscataway, NJ
- 08855
-
- Phone: 908-445-3551
- EMail: {imielins,navas}@cs.rutgers.edu
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Imielinski & Navas Experimental [Page 27]
-
-