RJ Atkinson allegedly wrote on 07/29/2009 20:51 GMT+02:00:
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.
I just wonder if they all should be solved with the same mechanism. The issues in site mobility are by necessity network-level issues, but issues in individual node mobility are not all solvable at the network layer. If some node mobility issues must be dealt with at higher layers, then that changes the context in which the ones that _can_ be solved at the network layer are considered.
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.
Agreed, as long as we do it from the perspective of "RRG". RJ Atkinson allegedly wrote on 07/30/2009 24:16 GMT+02:00:
In the limit, if both nodes are constantly changing their point of network attachment, then both nodes will not be able to send or receive any packets before a new Layer-3 location change -- at which point both nodes are effectively disconnected, at least until they stand still for a bit.
... using the mechanisms you are assuming. :-) Scott _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
