Re: [RRG] Re: Supposed impossibility of scaling for mobility

["William Herrin" <bill@herrin.us>]

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Scott Brim <swb@employees.org> wrote:
>  RFC3775 (mobility support in IPv6) says:
>
>    L2 handover
>
>       A process by which the mobile node changes from one link-layer
>       connection to another.  For example, a change of wireless access
>       point is an L2 handover.
>
>    L3 handover
>
>       Subsequent to an L2 handover, a mobile node detects a change in
>       an on-link subnet prefix that would require a change in the
>       primary care-of address.  For example, a change of access router
>       subsequent to a change of wireless access point typically
>       results in an L3 handover.
>
>  Essentially an L3 handover is an event that requires your IP address
>  to change.

Scott,

  I don't offer "multihoming add/drop" as an implementation of
mobility described in any RFC I'm aware of. Quite the contrary: those
designs are deficient. They're based on limitations in the routing
system's capability which we have an opportunity here to change.

  Instead, I offer a possible re-envisioning of the mobility problem
in light of a non-monolithic map-encap routing system (such as TRRP).
If correct, that re-envisioning eliminates mobility's hardest problem.

Regards,
Bill Herrin

-- 
William D. Herrin herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg