On 26/02/2015 05:14, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Wed, 25 Feb 2015, Ray Hunter wrote: > >> That way the devices can roam at L3, without all of the nasty side effects >> of re-establishing TPC sessions, or updating >> dynamic naming services, or having to run an L2 overlay network everywhere, >> or having to support protocols that require a >> specialised partner in crime on the server side (mTCP, shim6 et al). > > It's my firm belief that we need to rid clients of IP address dependence for > its sessions. Asking clients to participate in HNCP > only addresses the problem where HNCP is used. > > Fixing this for real would reap benefits for devices moving between any kind > of network, multiple providers, mobile/fixed etc.
Violent agreement. This is not a homenet problem; it's an IP problem. In fact, it's exactly why IP addresses are considered harmful in some quarters. Trying to fix it just for homenet seems pointless. http://www.sigcomm.org/ccr/papers/2014/April/0000000.0000008 Brian _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
