Hello Heiner, Thanks for this:
> I agree with all your "must be's" (btw you also enlists some > non-requirement statements). > > But why do you want to postpone considering MIP ? I don't - its just that the voluntary adoption question only applies to fixed networks which can, in principle, get multihoming, portability and TE in an unscalable fashion by getting PI space and advertising it in the DFZ. We need firstly to have most of those networks voluntarily choose the scalable solution and secondly make the scalable solution amenable to a much larger number of generally smaller networks which don't have the resources to use the current BGP system, even if there was no scaling problem. I do have a mobility approach which is based on a core-edge separation scheme such as LISP, APT or Ivip. It doesn't involve any new namespaces or new types of addresses. There's no way cell-phone users would have the resources to non-scalably achieve mobility, using their own PI prefix, so the voluntary adoption question doesn't arise for mobile use of the core-edge separation scheme. I have never been able to understand what you keep mentioning about geographic mapping, or "location-namespace" etc. Can you give a practical explanation of how it would work, with a different thread subject than this one? How would your system enable non-upgraded hosts or upgraded hosts in non-upgraded networks communicate with the devices using your system? This is my question 3: http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/RRG-2009/constraints/ How would traffic using your system traverse the DFZ? This is my question 6. - Robin _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
