When a host connects to a different link covered by a different subnet, indeed it will require a new IP address. That's pretty fundamental to what a subnet is. Hosts are getting better and better at handling multiple addresses, of both versions, coming and going. MPTCP should continue to help in this regard. I'm a big fan of seeing more and more MPTCP, and I've been impressed at the ability of modern devices to upgrade their host stacks in the past 4-5 years (vs. the decade or so before). I'll remain cautiously hopeful here for the long term.
In the mean time, I fully expect that to support seamless wifi roaming from one AP to another there will have to be some sort of bridging or tunneling (capwap, et. al) taking place to keep the single ethernet wifi subnet alive for IPv4 and less modern IPv6 hosts. That doesn't mean there will be no room for routing in the home, as one of the primary motivations for IP routing is to support diverse media types. i.e, it's much easier I think if wi-fi only has to worry about roaming within wi-fi, and not MOCA, EoPL, 802.15.4, Bluetooth LE, etc. as well. One day if/when hosts and apps finally become fully resilient to IP address changes, then it could become much easier on APs as they will have the chance to simply hand out a new IPv6 address and route, avoiding bridging and/or tunneling tricks. That could be a nice win for wifi scalability, but to be honest is shrouded in so many operational practicalities and moving parts that it's best not to try pretend that this will come to pass even if we are successful in providing the world with zero-touch IP routing technology in the home. It could be a very nice bonus, and I hope it happens, but I wouldn't want to set the bar that high in the near term as something homenet can make happen on its own. - Mark On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swm...@swm.pp.se> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Feb 2015, Ole Troan wrote: > > are you replying to the point I made? cause fully functioning MHMP >> requires host support (read MP-TCP/session layer) regardless of moving or >> not. >> > > If I extrapolated correctly what Juliusz wrote, that is not what he had in > mind. > > with regards to a proposal I haven't seen one written up, but I don't >> think what your are stating is it. ;-) >> > > I didn't think so either. :) > > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swm...@swm.pp.se > > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet >
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
