Thank you, Dino, for updating me wrt LISP&mobility and for sending
the Meyer-draft.
I do understand the organizational arguments with the LISP-charter.
But wrt RRG, the mobility issue should have highest priority.
Obviously, you can cater for mobility on top of whichever routing
architecture. Proof: MIP4.
But in search of a future routing architecture you can also come up
with something that doesn't depend on a home-agent and which is
also most appropriate for mobile nodes, i.e. some other than a
mobility-jack-up solution.
Well, yes, if you are going to build a scalable architecture, it has
to scale with the type of devices that Internet plans to deploy in the
coming decade. And we all know mobile phones will be ubiquitous.
Dino
Heiner
In einer eMail vom 26.11.2009 00:13:54 Westeuropäische Normalzeit
schreibt d...@cisco.com:
Dave Meyer presented LISP-MN in the IETF Friday morning LISP WG
meeting. The ID is enclosed. Dave can forward the slides he used to
present.
Dino
On Nov 25, 2009, at 3:09 PM, heinerhum...@aol.com wrote:
> Whenever I mentioned, how badly MIP is handled by all models of the
> well-positioned RRG-contributors, the response was silence. In the
> LISP-mailinglist discussion this issue is officially
deferred.Bottom-
> line: Let's push LISP as it is and let's think about MIP later, when
> LISP is well anchored.
>
> It seams to me that inside RRG this issue isn't handled
differently.
>
> Heiner
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> rrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
