RE: on the point of mobility & multihoming

["marcelo bagnulo" <mbagnulo@ing.uc3m.es>]

Hi Iljitsch,


> Multiaddress mulithoming and mobility solutions must incorporate the
> following mechanisms:
>
> 1. multiplexing in the presence of more than one address pair
> 2. adding/removing addresses

Well, there is a difference in the requirements in this point in mobility
and multihoming.
Both needs a handover mechanism, to stop using a locator and start using an
alternative one, but strictly speaking, the locator set involved in a
multihoming solution can be fixed, becuase it is known a priori, for
instance consider noid. In mobility, this is not so, because you don't know
which will be your future locators.

Regards, marcelo

> 3. for multihoming: failover
> 4. for mobility: rendezvous
>
> It would be stupid to have two sets of mechanisms for 1. and 2., as the
> complexity of having to implement them both such that they can work
> reliably in the presence of the other is sure to be much worse than
> simply sharing them between mobility and multihoming. Unfortunately the
> ways in which current MIPv6 does these are sub-par, so we need to have
> something better. The logical conclusion is that the MIP people will
> have to throw their stuff out and use the new mechanisms, but I don't
> think we're ready to have that fight quite yet.
>
>