Re: on the point of mobility & multihoming

[Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>]

john.loughney@nokia.com wrote:

> So a requirement that a multi6 solution must not break
> mobility (MIPv6?) would be sufficient?

That could be a starting point.

I am, however, willing to make it softer if necessary. Say,
if HIP folks believe they can solve both problems, that should
also be allowed, assuming HIP is otherwise accepted as the MULTI6
solution.

Also, I kind of agree with the comments on the list that
mobility and multihoming are part of the same thing. Like
someone told me a couple of days ago, becoming multi-homed
is half a handoff, because you move to another place but
don't move away from the previous one ;-) So I think the
ability to do mobility too is a desirable feature, though
perhaps not a mandatory requirement.

--Jari