[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: how mobile do we want to be



Thierry,

I guess you asked the question because mobile networks are done
in the NEMO WG. MIP6 WG only does host mobility.

when Geoff said Mobile IPv6 working group, I am sure he meant
all MIP6 related WGs. :)

Vijay

Thierry Ernst wrote:
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.