RE: [RRG] Reactivating the RAM list?

["Tony Li" <tony.li@tony.li>]

|If mobility is ruled out of scope on the RRG list, I think the RAM
|list would be a good place to discuss it too.  While Tony has
|repeatedly pointed out that people will use routing for mobility,
|and that therefore we need to discuss it, he wrote two messages
|recently:
|
|  http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg00772.html
|  http://psg.com/lists/rrg/2008/msg00774.html
|
|indicating that we should drop the mobility discussion for now.


... And the operative words here are "for now".  I have every intention of
returning to the topic at the appropriate time, but for the sake of making
forward progress, it seems like there are some more basic issues that we can
deal with (granularity & churn) and then revisit mobility in a bit.  If, for
example, we conclude that we want host level granularity and can support a
churn of 1 nano-second, then the entire mobility disucssion is moot.  So
let's decide where we are on the basic issues and then come back to the more
complex issues.


|I am also wary of the notion of trying to set an upper bound on the
|rate of mapping changes, because this may involve an assumption that
|each mapping change doesn't pay its way and so causes unreasonable
|burdens on other parties.  That is true of BGP or APT, but is
|substantially not the case for Ivip or potentially other proposals.


Interesting point.  I'm not quite following.  Is this is an intrinsic
difference between push and pull, or is there something more?

Tony





--
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