Re: how mobile do we want to be

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On 14-mrt-05, at 16:41, avri@psg.com wrote:

> I think the question is more a recognition that the network is now a 
> network in motion:  systems move and networks move.  And while it is 
> true that some part so the network, doesn't move, or moves very 
> slowly, an overwhelming amount of the edge is in motion. And I think 
> it is important to realize that a large number of  sessions should 
> remain viable despite this continuous motion.

Could you provide some examples of applications where a 
disconnect/reconnect is sufficiently problematic that MIPv6 or 
something similar is warranted?

So far the only stuff I can think of is remote login and streaming 
audio/video.

> In other words I think the question is not, "how mobile do we want to 
> be", but how mobile are we and how mobile will we be by the time a 
> shim6 solution is implemented and widely deployed.

My prediction: not very. 99% of all traffic today is either sessions 
that go away within seconds, or can be easily reestablished after a 
forced disconnect. I don't see how the other 1% is going to take over 
the world any time soon.

> 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.

I don't think this is a good idea. Let's focus on the basic shim 
functionality, and when we have something useful there, we can sync up 
with other efforts and see what we need to do to avoid duplication of 
effort and to gain synergy.