Beating an already dead horse: The MANET deployments I have been involved with handle mobility within the L3 routing system and, of course, have no difficulty in readily changing L3 attachment points. The network attachment points may or may not be re-numbered, based upon the nature of the movement (e.g., intra-subnetwork moves are transparent) and scaling issues.
Concerning HIP, we have extensive demos that show how HIP protects communicating end systems from the effects of mobility and multihoming in MANET environments. Our Secure Mobile Architecture (SMA), which is now available from The Open Group, also shows that one can even replace entire underlying network systems in real time without impacting the existing sessions of communicating hosts that use HIP. -----Original Message----- From: Tony Li [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 1:15 AM To: Eliot Lear Cc: RJ Atkinson; [email protected] RG Subject: Re: [rrg] RRG Mobility Architecture Eliot Lear wrote: > > On 7/30/09 8:21 AM, Tony Li wrote: >> All of the old ones have great difficulty in changing the L3 point of >> attachment, and end up using the Home Agent concept as the rendezvous >> point. If location is independent of identity, then it's conceivable >> that one can update peer locations without loosing connections. > > What about HIP? > Yes, ok, if you go to the trouble of CGI's then you can change too. Wouldn't it just be simpler and cleaner to have location be separate? Tony _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
