Re: how mobile do we want to be

[Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>]

 On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 11:08:46 +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>  It's you and Avri who keep harping about mobility without addressing
>  the technical issues that I or others bring up in response.


Oh?:

>  There is no evidence that layer 3 mobility
>  is even useful or necessary,

that's not a technical claim.  and the original discussions, a year or so
ago, had clear examples of interest, with mobile phones switcing between
cell phone linkage and 802.11 linkage being one of the more interesting.

and:

>  No, but it does need a home address, so you don't get multihoming with
>  existing mobility. If you want multihoming AND mobility you need strong
>  crypto to authenticate adding addresses to existing sessions.

1. the 'home address' model is needed in some mobility cases, but not
others. To assert that one is always needed is to presume details about the
problem and solution space that haven't been stated.


2. strong crypto is the typical choice for any mechanism that changes
addresses within a transport association.

and:

>  Multihomed, mobile, simple: pick any two.

clever, but without foundation and certainly not a 'technical issue'.


>  We now have the situation that a group of people wants to do X. Another
>  group of people wants to do X+Y. Does this mean the first group is now
>  obiligated to do (X+Y), even though (X+Y) is much harder to solve than
>  (X)+(Y)?

given the trauma caused by a shim-like change to the architecture and given
the very poor history of getting these sorts of changes adopted by the
Internet user community, the answer ought to be yes.


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