HF Industry Association Briefing

1
HF Industry Association Briefing
Interoperability Cooperative Meeting (ICM)
Special Interest Committee Status Report
Presented byJames L. Mahan Senior Systems
Engineer SAIC
2
Agenda

• What the ICM is for (review)
• Membership
• Standards (STANAG 5066) Improvements
• Compatibility issues
• Resolutions
• Operational Use Issues

3
Charter / Processes of the ICM

• The ICM always strives to accept and address
  issues and concerns regarding HF interoperability
  from all three categories of members
• Developers (D),
• Regulators (R) and
• Government Users/Buyers (G)
• The results are cataloged and prioritized
• specification changes or updates,
• user guidebook documentation or
• unique applications best addressed through
  contracts or agreements.
• As the sub-committee charter dictates, platform
  (design) needs and user (implementation) issues
  are the primary concern of the ICM and
  categorized as development or implementation
  centric.

4
ICMs focus over the last year

• Customer participation has increased in ICM
• Helped to address value and need statements as
  the HF evolution continues
• Influenced ICM effort to
• focus its agenda on those
• items which maximized
• HF interoperability potential
• A pattern of interest has emerged from the ICM
  endeavor
• Four simple need statements
• HF must address communications as
• Information Technology data
• or LAN Portal (IT centric)
• Users awareness of wireless
• mobility also demands a
• (WAN) networking capability
• Certs and Testing will be the
• preferred method for customers
• to ascertain compliance and interoperability
• value
• HF even in IT environments has to be user
  friendly and automatic (24/7/365)

5
Agenda Items discussed

• Development
• Networking HF nodes using multiple softlinks
• Specification changes and improvements will
  address one to many and many to one link
  management scenarios
• Methods for cycling, time
• slotting or otherwise assigning
• priority to HF nodes to eliminate
• link interferences by other
• network members
• Test efforts are underway to
• address how best to discover
• and envelope authorized
• hidden nodes into a military
• secure network

6
Agenda Items discussed

• Development
• HF nodal network using Internet Protocol
• US Navy/NATO C3 Agency experimenting middleware
  client to interface LANS and applications with
  HF equipment / software
• Accomplished ARQ chat and Web site replication
• Successfully interfaced to
• WAN infrastructure at shore
• via tunneled SATCOM path
• During 3 days of intensive
• data exchanges, over 10
• MBytes IP data was
• transferred between
• mobile nodes over HF
• via IP Client
• Efficiency ranged up to 55
• of raw channel data rate

7
Agenda Items discussed

• Development
• HF Multiple Softlink Product Development (STANAG
  5066)
• Harris provided insight into their upcoming
  development work
• CACH (Channel
• Access with
• Control
• Handshaking)
• Manages in
• logical progression
• how each node
• correlates incoming
• message transport
• traffic without
• spending time
• recalling delivery
• status at each link
• request

8
Agenda Items discussed

• Development
• Test and verification of HF Data using STANAGs
  and Mil-Std specifications was solidly defined
  and accepted by the ICM membership
• Mr. Joe Schulte of DISAs Joint Interoperability
  Test Center (JITC) did an excellent job in
  defining and categorizing the similarities and
  differences between
• Backward compatibility evaluations
• Compliance certification and
• Interoperability assessment
• The interesting note that was finally brought
  home to all the members was the serial and
  complimentary natures of these levels of
  scientific measurements
• i.e. compliance must be ascertained as a basis
  for determining interoperability

9
Agenda Items discussed

• Implementation
• Efforts within the U.S. to bridge gaps in federal
  and military interoperability were addressed
• Department of Homeland Defense agencies briefed
  their efforts and perspectives on achieving
  broader capabilities and higher levels of
  interoperability
• FEMA representatives
• defined their network
• architecture and dependency
• on state and local nodes for
• network coverage
• Efforts toward high speed
• HF data are underway
• Backward compatibility
• with current deployed
• systems is mandatory

10
Agenda Items discussed

• Implementation
• Department of Homeland Securitys Coast Guard
  agency presented their successes in
• using STANAG 5066 and high
• speed modems for border
• protection, coastal patrol and
• defense agency support
• HFDX has replaced the HFDL
• system of communication
• throughout the US and territorial
• patrol waters
• Advanced deployment of High
• speed HF networks are under test
• in District 9 (great lakes region)

11
Agenda Items discussed

• Implementation
• User Guide development was prototyped/introduced
  to ICM members
• Introduction
• Provides a brief refresher on HF and defines why
  the medium is viable
• Established the layout of the user guide
• Section 1 Planning
• Site Survey
• Communications Plan
• Existing Equipment configuration assessment
• Skill Level assessment
• New Equipment acquisition Test)
• Section 2 Installation
• Operational Norms experience from ICM
• Unique characteristics to consider in
• assembling an HF data network
• STANAG/IP address management
• Section 3 Operations
• Outline what is going on behind the curtain
• Standard actions to maintain efficient system

12
Summary

• The ICM continues to proactively address HF data
  interoperability issues
• Customer, regulator and supplier collaboration
  provides excellent venue for value oriented
  solutions
• Networking using Multiple Softlink, High speed IP
  over the Air and always up (24/7/365)
  capabilities are specification change candidates
• Networked HF using MSP development and testing is
  underway by the U.S. and NATO.
• Suppliers are also leading efforts to fulfill
  networked HF requirement
• The ICM recommends and recognizes the importance
  of customers using test agencies and standardized
  test regimens to verify conformance and
  interoperability
• ICM still plans to recommend core set of test
  criteria.
• The United States DHS agencies are seeking to
  improve their HF capability and broaden their
  interoperability
• The USCG and FEMA presented their goals and
  perspectives on interoperability
• A HF data User Guide has been prototyped as a
  possible ICM output to industry and customers

Next ICM is in the 3rd week of June 2003
13
Backup Slides
14
Charter

• The vision of the ICM organization shall be data
  interoperability at the highest datarates
  effectively possible within the provisions of
  government standards beginning with STANAG 5066
  as its focus
• The goal is to maintain a cooperative effort
  between industry and governments to implement
  STANAG 5066 and keep interoperability true
• The charter of the ICM is to proliferate the use
  of HF Standards in creating interoperable RF
  capability between two or more nodes

15
Five Plateaus to best performance

• Scalable Solution Considerations

STANAG
16
HF Migration to Data Needs the Low Key Elegance
of S-5066
( Works Today, Crypto Ready, and Cost Effective)
HFIA
ICM
Worldwide (HF) IP address System
Networked LAN,WAN PPP and TCP/IP
17
ICM issue processing flow
Non-Public
Start
Public
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Finish
18
What do we mean Clients

• A common perception of software design emphasis
  is emerging

• Off the shelf (OTS) or modified (OTS) IT oriented
  software applications (plug-ins)

Client Middleware to control interface to the
Stack for utility and versatility
Software components (may be inside or outside of
core software) to interpolate or convert
datagrams and management messages (i.e.) drivers
The STANAG 5066 specified stack software
19
Data from ICM membership, and invited customers
on STANAG 5066 benchmarks
IT Interfaces (9)
HF Networks (7)
Cert/Test (4)
User Centric Solutions (4)
Figure 2 Top 4 concerns within Design
Development is showing a pattern of interest