Re: Move forward

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Pekka;


> > > > 4. Mobility-based approaches (although this could be classified under 2.)

> > 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.

No. All.

> I agree with them as long term approaches, but I'm not sure about the
> classification of all the useful solutions under "mobility".

I can't see any reason to have short and long term approaches.

All we need is a solution and a solution-specific transition strategy.

Some solution may require two steps of transition. But, such a
solution is poor with complex and painful transition and should
be avoided.

> Mobility is too vague a word for that.

That is a problem of the original classification attempt.

							Masataka Ohta