Re: how mobile do we want to be

[Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>]

 On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 22:26:33 +0100, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
> >  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'.
....
>  When we begin discussing these issues in multi6, multiple people
>  claimed that mobility and multihoming are so similar that they could be
>  addressed using similar solutions. Becuase of this reaon, i thourougly
>  studied if mip6 could be used to provide mutlihoming support and the
>  answer is clearly NO. (see draft-bagnulo-multi6-mnm-00.txt)


Marcelo,

As you note, multiple people have considered this topic and, I believe, have
attempted to consider it carefully.

My comment was about the public (group) process, not the behavior of
individuals.

We are seeing the fruit of this deficiency in the current public discussion.

Take a look at the range of responses the notes from Avri and me and you
will find that they entirely lack any substance.  They are simply
dismissive.

Had there been serious, public discussion that resulted in serious, public
understanding and rough consensus about this issue, then the responses would
have had some substance.

  d/

ps. on reviewing the document you cite, I note that a) it is tied to MIP6,
rather than the more general issue I raised, and b) it is a very long way
from rejecting the reasonableness of combining multihoming with mobility.

  ---
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  +1.408.246.8253
  dcrocker  a t ...
  WE'VE MOVED to:  www.bbiw.net