|Others may disagree.
I'll take you up on that. |1) Solving problems that we don't need to solve is going to weaken a |solution. (Good solutions will, as Noel seems to like to put it, |unexpectedly solve additional problems. But that is different for |designing to solve a varied selection of problems all at once.) No matter what you and I say, some folks will try to use the routing architecture to provide mobility (e.g. Connexion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connexion_by_Boeing). As a result, we have no choice but to deal with mobility, if only to bound the amount of damage that is inflicted as a result. If you don't want to deal with it under the label of mobility, then we can change it to "the maximum amount of churn that any single player can inject". |2) "Mobility" is not a single problem. In the text I have elided, you |indicate that you specifically mean mobility over 100s or 1,000s of |kilometers. But other folks mean other things. Solving "Mobility" is |almost meaningless, given the range of problems. I submit that the range of the mobility is a total red herring. As always, we care about topological changes, not geographical ones. From a topological perspective, you can cause a 'mobility' event simply by disabling one interface on your laptop and enabling another. For a zero physical distance move, you could, conceptually, change your topological association completely. Tony -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
