Dino, Having read the Meyer-draft, I realize that "mobile node" does not mean "mobile router" but rather "mobile user (handset)". I assumed it means mobile router, which wrt LISP would mean mobile RLOC. The draft mentions that it supports IP mobility without a home-agent. Well , the truth is, a mn may proxy the home-agent to some limited extent. This is not what I am talking about. My vision: If the DNS can provide the geographical coordinates (RFC 1712 experimental) we could route to the respective egress router, and in case this geo-information is pretty vague (due to roaming within some scope of geographical neighborhood) we can make a well-scoped search. By other words: Abolishing the scalability problem is just a side effect for better routing capabilities. he fundamental difference is: All IP folks consider IP-addresses routable although it is only mappable (as are MAC-addresses, too). Wheras addresses, derived from the geographical coordinates have always a well-known scope. In einer eMail vom 27.11.2009 19:21:12 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt [email protected]:
> 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. Well, yes, if you are going to build a scalable architecture, it has to scale with the type of devices that Internet plans to deploy in the coming decade. And we all know mobile phones will be ubiquitous. Yes. That's why TARA is the best solution for it. You don't have to disseminate where the geographical coordinates (x,y) are located:-) Regards, Heiner Dino > > 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
