Re: how mobile do we want to be

[Ryuji Wakikawa <ryuji@sfc.wide.ad.jp>]

Hello Margaret

I just subscribed to list and may miss some background of this 
discussion.
some comments.

On 2005/03/19, at 1:56, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

> Hi Thierry,
>
> > Another one is saying that "initially the WG will focus only on site
> > multihoming" but "will later investigate the impact on exisiting
> > protocols, particularly mobility related ones such as MIPv6, NEMO,
> > FMIPv6, HMIPv6".
>
> I would actually be bit stronger than this and say that the intiial 
> shim6 work should have a goal of being compatible with existing 
> mobility solutions, such as MIP6 and NEMO.  I think that we should 
> take a similar goal regarding transport protocols, such as TCP, UDP 
> and SCTP.
> It might (or might not) be the subject of later work to optimize the 
> interactions between shim6 and MIP6 and/or to develop new mobility 
> solutions based on shim6.

Interactions between shim6 and MIP6 are necessary, when SHIM6 becomes 
RFC.
BUT, SHIM6 should not be solo solution to achieve end/site multihoming.

Indeed, it's also important to look at possible multihoming solutions 
for
MIP6 or NEMO protocol in "other" WG, maybe MIP6, Monami, NEMO.

Since SHIM6 and MIP6/NEMO are very similar design concept (to me),
it indicates that MIP6/NEMO are also capability to support 
site/end-multihoming by itself.

MIP6 already has a unique address (HoA),
It's not big changes to MIP6 to bind multiple CoAs to the HoA. It's 
same for MR, too.

regards,
ryuji