Re: how mobile do we want to be

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

Hi

My comment was for Margaret's observation.

> 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.

I'm also interested in technical discussion, but
I believe this clarification was important to some other WG.

I did not see any technical discussion on this ML since my subscription,
because of this thread? Why?
ML is always open for any discussion, right?

regards,
ryuji

On 2005/03/19, at 4:03, Bound, Jim wrote:

> Hello,
>
> > 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.
>
> Would you tell us why you believe SHIM6 and MIP6/NEMO in technical
> architecture terms?  Thanks.
>
> P.S. Chairs I believe there is consensus we are to focus on multihoming
> and not mobility.  If I am correct my input is for you to shut down 
> this
> discussion and many mails that are doing nothing to further the 
> delivery
> of a multihoming solution.  But I will continue as above to discuss
> interesting points raised that are clear technically and worth my 
> tiime.
> thanks
>
> /jim