Scott, > -----Original Message----- > From: Scott Brim [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 8:45 AM > To: Templin, Fred L > Cc: Russ White; RRG > Subject: Re: [rrg] Recommendation and what happens next > > 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?".
That is a very good question. > 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."? That is also correct. Although I named a specific endpoint mobility approach, there is nothing in IRON/RANGER that would introduce any unfavorable constraints to other approaches. Thanks - Fred [email protected] > > thanks ... Scott _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
