Hi Whilst I agree that if you have a new feature, it will aid deployment, I am very unsure that global mobility is it. I think this because there is a lack of global mobility within the voice world, and I have a suspision that this is partly due to the time to build security associations making handover (as opposed to portability) technically dificult, and partly due to a business model that holds customers to you - the easier you make handover the easier it is for someone to start using a different network What I would really like though is to understand what the trade-offs are - if we support mobility what will it add in terms of system complexity or cost. and also a better definition of mobility - if we are looking at several seconds, are we really talking "portability" ie no session continuation across the mobility event, even if the IP address stays the same some session types will drop with that type of time lag - I know I hit reload on a web page if it seems sluggish to respond and I suspect I only wait a few seconds; are the mobility events being essentially quite rare (crossing borders) ? The idea of holding your IP address whilst going between home and work raises a load of associated questions about security and accountability. Also intersting to ask why the phone networks chose to use "nasty routing inefficincies" Also interesting to wonder why, if mobility is that important to you, you dont use existing solutions? Louise
________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of William Herrin Sent: Wed 12/03/2008 21:30 To: Joel M. Halpern Cc: Routing Research Group Subject: Re: [RRG] Re: Supposed impossibility of scaling for mobility On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Joel M. Halpern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1) Solving problems that we don't need to solve is going to weaken a > solution. I'm with Robin on this one. If our solution solves the routing portion of the mobility problem, it will by its nature solve the multihoming and system capacity problems as well. At least as important: the new capability that didn't previously exist and doesn't otherwise exist will give operators a reason to deploy it beyond reducing the cost of a DFZ router. Folks aren't real good about spending more money now in order to spend less later. Damn lousy at it actually. A valuable new feature like mobility could get us over that hump. And for the record, I take my laptop back and forth to work every day. You probably do too. When I do so, it travels between and through networks which are administratively and topologically distant. It would be awfully nice if it could keep its "number" the same way my cell phone does without the nasty routing inefficiencies that had to be introduced into the telephone network... Nice enough that I could see buying service from companies who could do it in preference to those who couldn't. As I'm sure you gathered from the above, I'm much more interested in working on solution trees which also address the routing portion of the mobility problem than I am in working on solution trees which don't. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3005 Crane Dr. Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
