Re: Move forward

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Thu, 13 Mar 2003, Masataka Ohta wrote:
> > > 4. Mobility-based approaches (although this could be classified under 2.)
> 
> > I'm not sure what you refer to with mobility based approaches.  It seems
> > to me that such do not exist (which would help with multihoming, that is).
> 
> There is no approaches based on MIPv6.
> 
> Mobile protocol with a single home agent (or something like that)
> is unreliable and useless.
> 
> That is, to make multihoming useful, it should be without any single
> point of failure and have multiple home agents.
> 
> Then, such mobile protocols solve most, or all, of the problems of
> multihoming.
> 
> However, the classification for type 4 is not productive, as all the
> useful solutions are, in a sense, mobility based.

These "mobile protocols" you refer to are locator/identifier separation
variants, like HIP or LIN6, I assume.

I agree with them as long term approaches, but I'm not sure about the
classification of all the useful solutions under "mobility".  Mobility is
too vague a word for that.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings