Templin, Fred L allegedly wrote on 03/09/2010 17:22 EST: > Scott, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Scott >> Brim >> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 10:44 AM >> To: Russ White >> Cc: RRG >> Subject: Re: [rrg] Recommendation and what happens next >> >> Russ White allegedly wrote on 03/07/2010 20:57 EST: >>> A second thing might be to address mobility. How does each proposal deal >>> with host level mobility, since this is obviously a direction in the >>> Internet at large (whether we like it or not, mobile phones and other >>> such devices are going to rely increasingly on the Internet, which >>> may--or may not--place a larger burden on the routing system). >> >> The routing system does not deal with endpoint mobility directly and >> cannot make many predictions about how it will be handled. However, >> each proposal does set up the framework in which mobility has to be >> designed, and can constrain how mobility can be done. It would be good >> if each proposal listed the assumptions it makes, and the constraints it >> puts on, both endpoint and network mobility. > > With IRON/RANGER, the hybrid routing system handles network > mobility without causing a ripple effect in the BGP. Endpoint > mobility as you say is not handled by the routing system > directly, but is rather handled by an adjunct mechanism. We > have been thinking that HIP would be the natural adjunct > mechanism to not only handle host-level mobility but also > to give a true loc/ID split.
Suppose the generic question everyone should answer is "how does the proposed system constrain or promote specific approaches to endpoint and network mobility?". You would say something like: "IRON/RANGER does not introduce any constraints on endpoint or network mobility approaches, or make one more appropriate than another."? thanks ... Scott _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
