Hello DY, I agree with your statement (msg07615):
> I don't think decoupling mobility from routing should be listed as a > design requirement. I don't think we can eliminate the possibility of > routing inherently providing mobility. The term "routing" is not defined clearly in: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-rrg-design-goals-04 If it means "every active device between the hosts" then this would mean all the existing routers and whatever new devices, or additional router functionality, is provided as part of a Core-Edge Separation architecture (LISP, Ivip or IRON). Since these additional devices and functions could be designed to handle mobility in a scalable fashion, it seems a bad idea to mandate in the design goals that this not be allowed. No-one is suggesting that existing routers do a lot more work to accommodate mobility. If the goal was simply to protect existing routers from such an extra burden, it might make more sense, if it could be shown that this could never be done scalably. Since the whole project is about scalability, and since some solutions (in my view, the only ones which could work) involve devices other than the hosts doing the extra work, all that is required is that the new and existing devices do their work scalably. - Robin _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
