RE: on the point of mobility & multihoming

[<john.loughney@nokia.com>]

Dave,

> jlnc> So a requirement that a multi6 solution must not break
> jlnc> mobility (MIPv6?) would be sufficient?
> 
> as for my own perspective, no, this would not be enough.
> 
> the infrastructure approach that is the basis for mipv6 has some
> serious deployment and use challenges.
> 
> more directly, it looks quite reasonable to use a single, rather
> small, set of mechanisms and solve substantial portions of both
> problem spaces.
> 
> it is by no means sure that this will actually work.  the problem is
> that the possibility that it _will_) work is not very much part of the
> discussion, yet it should be.  the potential benefits of a common
> mechanism are too large to ignore.

I still worry about feature-creep in Multi6.  Should a multi6 be
a floor polish & a desert topping?  

John