On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 13:24:46 +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
We didn't exclude the discussion. I'm just stating it as my
opinion that the draft charter is correct on this point, and that
this was already clear in the multi6 discussions.
the history of this line of consideration is that it has pretty much always excluded any serious effort to integrate mobility and multihoming. when the initial round of many presentations was done, in multi6, integration with mobility was automatically deferred to 'some other group'.
in case no one has noticed, responses to efforts at pursuing such an integration discussion have pretty much always tended to be similar to the responses appearing on this thread. those responses are automatic rejection, without any interest in seeing whether integration really can make sense. in other words, the tone of this online discussion has had more to do with religion than analysis.
my original posting, here, was attempting to compare this choice to a decision to have tcp behave very differently in lans than in wans -- in other words, to have two different tcps. the response, here, has been the equivalent of "lans are different from wans, so it's fine to have a different solution for tcp."
it is certainly true that some definitions of mobility and some definitions of multihoming can permit no useful overlap in the technical solution.
however it is also true that that some definitions permit a very high degree of overlap. folks seem curiously uninterested in being clear about the reasons for choosing the former, rather than the latter, given the serious long-term costs of having different solutions.
d/
---
Dave Crocker
Brandenburg InternetWorking
+1.408.246.8253
dcrocker a t ...
WE'VE MOVED to: www.bbiw.net