Re: how mobile do we want to be

[Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>]

At 02:41 AM 15/03/2005, avri@psg.com wrote:
> I think the question is more a recognition that the network is now a 
> network in motion:

I don't think this is a helpful characterization, nor does it apply to the 
overwhelming majority of the 160,000 prefixes we see in V4, or the somewhat 
lesser number of prefixes in IPv6.

There is a Mobile IPv6 working group, and the place to consider the various 
aspects of mobility in IPv6 is within that working group. To re-noodle over 
their work in shim6 is not entirely a helpful direction here. Perhaps a 
more helpful starting point in terms of scoping this work is the 
architecture draft prepared in the nulti6 context 
(http://draft-ietf-multi6-architecture.potaroo.net) (and in the context of 
this area of locator switching and the concept of a dynamically changing 
locator pool perhaps section 6 is a good starting point)

>It is for these reasons that I am arguing so insistently that we must 
include systems and networks in motion (if we want to reserve the term 
mobility for
 > MIP4/6 to avoid confusion) as part of the problem space shim6 must take 
into account.

This sounds like a charter discussion point to me- I'm not sure I heard you 
raise it in the BOF last week, although mobility was mentioned a number of 
times in the BOF.


regards,

  Geoff