Re: how mobile do we want to be

[Thierry Ernst <ernst@sfc.wide.ad.jp>]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 04:30:09 +1100
Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net> wrote:
> 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. 

Excuse me, if the point is to investigate network in motion, I fail to
see why the MIP6 WG (and not Mobile IPv6 WG) would be a good place, and
I also fail to see why concepts other than mobile IPv6 (with a home
address and a care-of address)  would be investigated in that WG.

Thierry




> 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.