Re: how mobile do we want to be

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

Hi,

OK, John was a big vague about what he was thinking about when
mentioning a BOF. May be a link to some drafts would help to clarify if
it's advanced work or more longer term.

I have to take the opportunity of this mail to mention that a few people
and I are involved into setting up a BOF in Paris. I would be called
"Monami6" i.e. MObile NOdes and Multiple Interfaces in IPv6".  We still
have to come up with clear problem statement drafts and a charter
description, we are working on it and we should come up with something
clear enough in the course of mid-april / end of april. The ML is
already set up on the IETF mailman server but I will make a proper
annoucement when drafts are updated on the IETF reposirtory are we would
prefer to have comments on the updated versions.

This BOF would be clearly about bringing additional mechanisms to mobile
host or routers operating Mobile IPv6 or NEMO BS. 

I think what Erik and John are talking about is something wider than
this in scope, and not focused on existing RFC 3963 and RFC 3775. So, to
clarify what I meant, extensions to Mobile IPv6 have been proposed for
years and years with little support from the Mobile IP WGs. However,
such extensions (e.g. draft-wakikawa-mobileip-multiplecoa-04.txt
[currently just expired, but a replacement draft will be posted in a
couple of days]) are mature enough.

Thierry


Erik Nordmark <erik.nordmark@sun.com> wrote:

> Thierry Ernst wrote:
> 
> > I disagree a BOF is needed, what is needed is to tackled with this
> > specific problem at the **IRTF**. There are more mature topics on
> > which IETF WGs have been (wrongly) disapproved while this is pretty
> > straight forward to me that it should be IRTF in the present case.
> 
> Thierry,
> you must have a very different view of what the problem is than I
> have,  because I had engineering solutions to how multihoming and
> mobile IP can  be combined in useful ways that I could discuss in a
> BoF, and I don't  see the research questions.
> 
> So perhaps you can say what you see as the hard research issues in
> this  space.
> 
> FWIW I look at the rather simple case of hosts and stub networks that 
> move while being connected to the Internet at multiple points, and not
>  the more MANET-like case where everything moves at the same time. I
>  see 
> the latter as MANET issues.
> 
>     Erik