It's a worthy endeavor to understand how two hosts that both always move and have no home rendezvous.
Eliot On 7/29/09 8:51 PM, RJ Atkinson wrote: > > Earlier, Heiner Hummel wrote: >> Suggestion: The RRG group may also discuss the importance and impact >> of IP Mobility for a scalable routing architecture on this Friday. >> >> Wrt above: Eventually by also envisioning roaming users who are ALWAYS >> roaming, i.e. without any home (agent). > > > I agree on both counts. > > I think the community needs a solution that supports not only site > multi-homing in a scalable way, but that also supports individual > host multi-homing, site mobility, and host mobility -- all integrated > together, with suitable scalability, and including appropriate security > capabilities. > > An accidental artifact of IETF processes is that work undertaken > in Working Group A is often undertaken in isolation from work > in Working Group B. This is not the fault of any person, but > just an IETF process artifact that is sometimes unavoidable. > An occasional result is having IETF standards for both A and B, > but that do not necessarily combine together in a harmonious, > integrated, and scalable way. > > As this is the IRTF, and as "architecture" is explicitly within > scope, it would be good if we considered the broader set of issues > as the Routing RG examines different architectural alternatives. > > Yours, > > Ran > > _______________________________________________ > rrg mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg > _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
