On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1) Solving problems that we don't need to solve is going to weaken a > solution.
I'm with Robin on this one. If our solution solves the routing portion of the mobility problem, it will by its nature solve the multihoming and system capacity problems as well. At least as important: the new capability that didn't previously exist and doesn't otherwise exist will give operators a reason to deploy it beyond reducing the cost of a DFZ router. Folks aren't real good about spending more money now in order to spend less later. Damn lousy at it actually. A valuable new feature like mobility could get us over that hump. And for the record, I take my laptop back and forth to work every day. You probably do too. When I do so, it travels between and through networks which are administratively and topologically distant. It would be awfully nice if it could keep its "number" the same way my cell phone does without the nasty routing inefficiencies that had to be introduced into the telephone network... Nice enough that I could see buying service from companies who could do it in preference to those who couldn't. As I'm sure you gathered from the above, I'm much more interested in working on solution trees which also address the routing portion of the mobility problem than I am in working on solution trees which don't. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3005 Crane Dr. Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 -- 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
