> And I'd strongly maintain that your statement above: > > "You're assuming that both host and network mobility can coexist. > On the surface this sounds conciliatory and ideal, but I'm afraid > it's not practical." > > is clearly incorrect.
In practice local and global mobility schemes co-exist. For example, MIP can co-exist with 802.11 handoff schemes (e.g. 11i, 11r). So I think that it will be required to point out specific co-existence issues, rather than asserting that the generic co-existence problem has no practical solution. BTW, 11r also has a notion of "initial" contact point, similar to an anchor, and I believe it should scale to 100K+ users in a Mobility Domain. > The proposal of using host-based mobility and network-based mobility > together in the manner proposed by NetLMM, with host-based mobility > handling global mobility and NetLMM (where deployed) handling local > mobility makes a lot of sense, and I haven't seen convincing arguments > to the contrary. Neither have I. _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
