Advertisement

Channel Switching Protocols Hinder the Transition to IP World: The Pentagon Story

  • Manfred Sneps-SneppeEmail author
  • Dmitry Namiot
  • Maris Alberts
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11660)

Abstract

In this paper, we target the strategy for telecommunications architectures during the transition to the IP-only models. The paper discusses the shifting from circuit switching to packet switching in telecommunications. Particularly, we analyze the coexistence of circuit switching and packet switching technologies in American military communications where each warfare object should have own IP address. The paper discusses the role of multifunction Soft Switches (MFSS). This Soft Switch plays the role of a media gateway between TDM channels and IP channels. As a case, we are passing through the transformation from SS7 signaling to internet protocol, ISDN-based government Defense Red Switch Network and, finally, the extremely ambitious cybersecurity issues and the cyber vulnerabilities of weapons found by Government Accountability Office. We conclude the growing cyber threats will provide a long-term channel-packet coexistence.

Keywords

IP protocol Telecom Packet switching 

References

  1. 1.
    U.S. Department of Defense. Global Information Grid. Architectural Vision, Version 1.0, June 2007Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vargas, A, et al.: Towards the development of the framework for inter sensing enterprise architecture. J. Intell. Manufact. 27(1), 55–72 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sneps-Sneppe, M., Seleznev, S., Kupriyanovsky, V.: DISN Network as the prototype of the network connection of civil defense NG 112. Int. J. Open Inf. Technol. 4(5), 39–47 (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    U.S. Department of Defense Unified Capabilities Requirements (UCR 2013), August 2019. http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/jitc_dri/pdfs/UCR_2013_Combined_signed.pdf
  5. 5.
    U.S. Army Unified Capabilities (UC) Reference Architecture (RA). Version 1.0, 11 October 2013Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    WEAPON SYSTEMS CYBERSECURITY: DOD Just Beginning to Grapple with Scale of Vulnerabilities. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-128, August 2019
  7. 7.
    Sneps-Sneppe, M.: On telecommunications evolution: pentagon case and some challenges. In: Proceedings of 2017 9th International Congress on Ultra Modern Telecommunications and Control Systems and Workshops (ICUMT), Munich, Germany, 6–8 November 2017Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sneps-Sneppe, M., Namiot, D.: On telecommunication architectures: from intelligent network to network functions virtualization. In: Proceedings of 8th International Congress on Ultra-Modern Telecommunications and Control Systems and Workshops (ICUMT2016), Brno, October 2016Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sneps-Sneppe, M., Sukhomlin, V., Namiot, D.: On cyber-security of information systems. In: 21st International Conference on Proceedings of Distributed Computer and Communication Networks DCCN 2018, Moscow, Russia, 17–21 September 2018Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sneps-Sneppe, M., Namiot, D.: Time to rethink the power of packet switching. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Conference of Open Innovations Association FRUCT. FRUCT Oy (2018)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sneps-Sneppe, M.: Pentagon Telecommunications: Digital Transformation and Cyber Defense. (Telekommunikatsii Pentagona: tsifrovaya transformatsiya i kiberzashchita). Scientific and technical publishing house «Goryachaya liniya – Telekom» , Moscow (2017)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    U.S. Department of Defense. Unified Capabilities Master Plan (UC MP), October 2011Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    U.S. Department of Defense. Assured Services (AS) Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) 2013 (AS-SIP 2013) Errata-1, July 2013Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Army Regulation 25–13. Information Management. Army Telecommunications and Unified Capabilities. Headquarters Department of the Army. Washington, DC, 11 May 2017Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baker, F., Polk, J.: (Cisco Systems) “Implementing an Emergency Telecommunications Service (ETS) for Real-Time Services in the Internet Protocol Suite”, RFC 4542, May 2006Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cisco Communication Strategy. Web. https://www.cisco.com/web/strategy/docs/gov/Cisco_LSC_Overview_Jan2011.pdf/. Accessed April 2019
  17. 17.
    Joint Interoperability Test Command. http://jitc.fhu.disa.mil/tssi/cert_pdfs/avaya_s8300d_v60_dtr1_jan13.pdf. Accessed August 2019
  18. 18.
    DARPA names Lockheed Martin to build intelligent network, 24 March 2005. http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2005/03/darpanames-lockheed-martin-to-build-intelligent-network.html/. Accessed August 2019
  19. 19.
    Chao, W.W.: Emerging advanced intelligent network (AIN) for 21st century warfighters. In: IEEE Military Communications. Conference Proceedings MILCOM 1999 (Cat. No. 99CH36341), vol. 1. IEEE (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manfred Sneps-Sneppe
    • 1
    Email author
  • Dmitry Namiot
    • 2
  • Maris Alberts
    • 3
  1. 1.Ventspils International Radioastronomy CentreVentspils University of Applied SciencesVentspilsLatvia
  2. 2.Faculty of Computational Mathematics and CyberneticsLomonosov Moscow State UniversityMoscowRussia
  3. 3.Institute of Mathematics and Computer ScienceUniversity of LatviaRigaLatvia

Personalised recommendations