Thank you, Dino, for updating me wrt LISP&mobility and for sending the Meyer-draft. I do understand the organizational arguments with the LISP-charter. But wrt RRG, the mobility issue should have highest priority. Obviously, you can cater for mobility on top of whichever routing architecture. Proof: MIP4. But in search of a future routing architecture you can also come up with something that doesn't depend on a home-agent and which is also most appropriate for mobile nodes, i.e. some other than a mobility-jack-up solution. Heiner In einer eMail vom 26.11.2009 00:13:54 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt [email protected]:
Dave Meyer presented LISP-MN in the IETF Friday morning LISP WG meeting. The ID is enclosed. Dave can forward the slides he used to present. Dino On Nov 25, 2009, at 3:09 PM, [email protected] wrote: > Whenever I mentioned, how badly MIP is handled by all models of the > well-positioned RRG-contributors, the response was silence. In the > LISP-mailinglist discussion this issue is officially deferred.Bottom- > line: Let's push LISP as it is and let's think about MIP later, when > LISP is well anchored. > > It seams to me that inside RRG this issue isn't handled differently. > > Heiner > _______________________________________________ > rrg mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
