On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 6:18 PM, Tony Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Or, in other words, we should drop the mobility discussion for now, deal > with the granularity and churn issues, and then see if we are happy with the > bounds that that imposes on mobility.
Hi Tony, Do we have a consensus on what target numbers for granularity and churn could support mobility directly in the routing system? If not, I submit that we should continue our tangent long enough to get them. While we might or might not want to support mobility directly in the routing architecture, it would be very informative if we could say: yes, this proposal meets the target criteria for mobility in the routing architecture and no, that proposal does not. 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
