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.
Right, the LISP mobile node implements a simple version of an ITR and
ETR and acts like an entire LISP site. So all the multi-homing
features are available to the mobile-node.
And when it roams, /32 host routes are not injected into the
underlying routing system.
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.
The Map-Server is where the roaming LISP mobile-node registers to when
its locators change. That *could* be viewed as a home-agent, but
packets don't flow through the Map-Server like they would for a MIP
home agent.
The stretch from LISP MN to LISP-site CN is 1. Which means the
shortest path between the two locators is taken.
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.
You want to route based on topological closeness and not geographical.
But more to the point you want to forward packets on a path that has
less total queuing in each hop. That is reduce the number of hops.
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.
Are you saying locator addresses are always geographical? And if so,
if a node roams where its location changes geographically, does the
address change? And is this address stored for end-point socket state?
Dino
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
