Jari, Do you have any specific text changes compared to the current version?
John > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Jari Arkko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 19 March, 2003 19:30 > To: Loughney John (NRC/Helsinki) > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Mobility in Nodes Requirements > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Jim, > > > > > >>>I don't believe that servers, for example, need to implement > >>>mobile node functionality. If a node is fixed and will not > >>>move, what use is mobile node functionality? > >> > >>A server in a helicopter or plane is mobile for a few > applications. I > >>understand I am trying to make a point that this exercise > needs to be > >>focused on more than the term "node". > > > > > > So, perhaps I should have said 'Nodes which change their IP > addresses, > > for example base on Mobile IP, MUST implement mobile node > functionality.' > > > > Would that kind of text cover your needs. > > This is a circular definition. The issue is that a node might not know > whether its attachment to a network is going to change or not. Those > that get these changes, could use mobile IPv6 to deal with it and > still keep sessions flowing. > > Jim may have a point here about the server in a helicopter. But where > do we draw the limit? How do we know that 3000 kg IBM mainframe > isn't being flown around in a cargo aircraft? Also, the type of > the interface on the device may have significance. Or the application; > a sensor reporting its findings using a single packet would not > need mobility. > > In conclusion I don't think we can base the mobile node support > requirement on the above definition. The options that I see are > the following: > > - "Hosts MAY/SHOULD/MUST support mobile node functionality" (the > current text uses MAY). > > - "Hosts SHOULD/MUST support mobile node functionality <condition>". > > Here <condition> could be e.g. related to the > type of the device "on portable devices", or maybe "on devices > weighing under 2 kilograms" ;-) > > We could base it on the type of the interfaces supported, > e.g., "on devices that may use wireless interfaces", > > We could base it on the type of the application, e.g., "on > devices that may have applications that require sessions to > survive movements". > > Frankly, I'm not sure it is possible to formulate a good > condition for the second option. So I'm inclined to think > that its either the current MAY support or possibly SHOULD > support. What do people think? > > >>>>> Hosts SHOULD support route optimization requirements for > >>>>> correspondent nodes. Routers do not need to support route > >>>>> optimization. > >>>>> > >>>>> Routers MAY support home agent functionality. > >>>> > >>>>Routers SHOULD support the HA is correct effort. Otherwise > >>>>MIPv6 don't work. > >>> > >>>Not all routers need to be Home Agents I don't believe that > >>>plain, vanilla routers will be affected by home agent > functionality. > >> > >>Routers that implement MIPv6 SHOULD support HAs. Again context is > >>everything. > > > > > > That text works for me. > > Uh... that's also a circular definition. Like Pekka noted > already, there > are two pieces of router functionality (sections 8.3 and 8.4). The > current keywords are SHOULD for the AI option etc and MAY for the HA > functionality. We can debate these keywords, but I personally think > they are fairly close to the right thing. > > Jari > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
