[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: on the point of mobility & multihoming

On 9-mrt-04, at 9:42, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

Multiaddress mulithoming and mobility solutions must incorporate the same
mechanisms:
1. multiplexing in the presence of more than one address pair
2. adding/removing addresses
3. failover
4. rendezvous
There is no difference between multihoming and mobility. 

I'm afraid I don't think that follows, but I would rather argue the
point when Geoff has written up a first version of the architectural
analysis. However, to scratch the surface of the argument, there
is one physical difference - in the site multihoming case I don't see
that there is a rendezvous issue.

I'm not so sure. In mobility, we need to know the current address of the correspondent. In multihoming, we need to know which of the correspondent's addresses is currently working, and of the working addresses, which is preferred. This is not fundamentally different, or at least it doesn't have to.

Obviously there are many details that will differ in practice, but multiaddressing is multiaddressing regardless of how it's first approached. However, I'm not sure if adding all the mobility requirements to our list at this time is helpful, the same way I'm not convinced rehashing policy and load balancing *now* is helpful. If we can come up with a synthesis of what's on the table now that is sound both in architecture and security, there should be ample opportunity to add the other stuff later. Granted, there is a slight chance we paint ourselves in a corner with regards to those issues now, but I'm willing to take that risk for the sake of focussing the discussion so we can achieve some results.


(And could you guys PLEASE stop repeating each other's postings in full? I'm beginning to feel sorry for the poor mailing list archive.)