Re: modules of a mh solution (was RE: New multi6 draft: WIMP)

[Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On 2004-02-18, at 19.14, marcelo bagnulo wrote:

>>
>> I'll comment that I think the discussion of multihoming gets distorted
>> by treated mobility as an entirely separate topic.  Portions of each 
>> are
>> entirely separate from the other.  However some portions do overlap. 
>> By
>> pursuing them independently, we do not take advantage of the overlap.
>
> Well, i guess that some mh solutions can be used to provide mobility 
> support
> but not all of them. For instance, i don't think that a solution like 
> NOID
> would address the mobility problem, since the dynamic of the locator 
> set
> changes is very slow because it is conditionated by the DNS timing
>
> I mean, in multihoming the locator set is pretty fixed and changes 
> rather
> slowly, and probably a solution that doesn't not support changes in the
> address set once that the asosciation has been established would be
> acceptable, i guess.
> this type of solution wouldn't be suitable to provide mobility support.

We also had this discussed sometime during the autumn and from what I 
remember, most seemed to think that mobility and mutli6 required 
solutions with different paramters - to the point where the solutions 
would be different solutions.

Best regards,

- - kurtis -

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 8.0.3

iQA/AwUBQDjNvaarNKXTPFCVEQJNAgCg2u30pTNNGqwsXqLN5dBRE3RyvecAn3f5
QW687JxGMMmxnNAV6oux2hTg
=AM4m
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----