On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 01:39:32AM -0800, David Lang wrote: > On Sun, 25 Jan 2015, Dave Taht wrote: > > >I want to make clear that I support dlang's design in the abstract... and > >am just arguing because it is a slow day. > > I welcome challenges to the design, it's how I improve things :-) > > >On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 10:44 PM, David Lang <[email protected]> wrote: > >>On Sat, 24 Jan 2015, Dave Taht wrote: > >> > > to clarify, the chain of comments was > > 1. instead of bridging I should route > > 2. network manager would preserve the IPv4 address to prevent > breaking established connections. > > I was explaining how that can't work. If you are moving between > different networks, each routed independently, they either need to > have different address ranges (in which case the old IP just won't > work), or they would each need to NAT to get to the outside (in > which case the IP may stay the same, but the connections will break > since the new router wouldn't have the NAT entries for the existing > connections)
To keep your IP when roaming: 3. The old school way: use mobile IP or some other tunneling mechanism (or VPN) so you can keep your same IP. 4. Use a "virtual subnet" model similar to: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-l3vpn-virtual-subnet-03 The draft is focused on data centers and VM migration, but the problem is the same with client migration/mobility. I would argue that it is even easier to "discover" the location of a client with Wi-Fi because of the association/authentication handshake with the AP rather than relying on a Gratuitous ARP/ND or LLDP, VSI, etc. 5. Use LISP: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locator/Identifier_Separation_Protocol http://lispmob.org/ (supported on OpenWRT) Has anyone played with this? _______________________________________________ Cerowrt-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.bufferbloat.net/listinfo/cerowrt-devel
