Re: on the point of mobility & multihoming

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

John, please suggest an appropriate wording change to
section 2.1.2.1 of draft-lear-multi6-things-to-think-about-01,
which already mentions mobility, but doesn't quite hit
your point.

  Brian

john.loughney@nokia.com wrote:
> 
> Dave,
> 
> >  The reasons that -- for this topic -- I think it is quite important
> >  to look at mobility and multihoming together are:
> >
> >  1.  My own perusal is convincing me that they have more in common
> >  than they have different
> >
> >  2.  Focusing only on one leads to assumptions that can be overly
> >  restrictive.  For example, one might think of multhoming addresses as
> >  being too stable.  Or one might think of mobility as only a trade
> >  from one address to another.
> >
> > In his typically frustrating style, of raising really good, basic
> > points, Geoff pointed out that one can be mobile AND multihomed.
> >
> > If we focus on one and not the other, we are not likely to deal with
> > this breadth and overlap adequately.
> 
> If we try to kill 2 birds with one stone, we'll probably miss both.
> I think we should be aware of the mobility side of the topic, but
> I am not so sure we should make sure we explicitly state that we will
> solve both.  I do think we should be aware of the mobility properties
> of any possible solutions, but I have my doubts that the IETF can
> solve problems that are less than extra-crispily defined.
> 
> thanks,
> John

-- 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter 
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM