Re: how mobile do we want to be

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

On 18-mrt-05, at 4:04, Thierry Ernst wrote:

> I second the fact that the deployment of any important architectural
> change should mandate a solution to both multihoming, mobility,
> security, multicast and so on.  [here, I'm speaking about deployment,
> not the charter].

I'm sorry, but forcing a multihoming solution to address mobility and 
multicast as well is insane. There is no evidence that layer 3 mobility 
is even useful or necessary, and the repeated claim that so many 
devices will be mobile without addressing the question whether these 
devices will actually want or need layer 4 sessions to move from one 
address to another only supports my suspicion that mobility is an 
answer in search of a question. Interdomain multicast doesn't exist if 
we round down to a reasonable number of digits.

And regardless of the merits of these technologies, _I_ am not willing 
to work on multihoming if mobility and multicast must be supported in 
the first version of the protocol, because I can't spare the additional 
time and I'm unwilling to accept the additional risk of failure. I 
suspect the same is true for most others who've been active in multi6.

So please let's do this shim in peace and revisit the interaction with 
other stuff when there is something concrete to build on.