Re: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6-00

[Tom Herbert <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 6:07 AM, Ca By <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 5:48 AM Peter Hessler <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> On 2017 Jun 04 (Sun) at 20:55:30 +0900 (+0900), Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>> :On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Tom Herbert <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> :
>> :> M bits for locator of physical device in mobile network
>> :> N bits for identifier of physical device
>> :> 128 - M - N bits for delegated addresses by the physical device
>> :>
>> :> I don't see a workable solution if device is assigned a /64. Am I
>> :> missing something?
>> :>
>> :
>> :There is no workable solution if you want to assign 64 bits to the bus,
>> 64
>> :bits to the routing system, and M bits for mobility, unless M = 0.
>>
>> That's *exactly* why bus and routing MUST NOT require a specific size.
>
>
> I would say this level of mobility or "nomadacity" has proven through the
> years to NOT work at the network level in the INTERNET.
>
That is not what we are proposing (in ILA at least). This is not
intended to work over the Internet. Mobility would be implemented
within a carrier network, external to that network it is transparent.
Logically, this provides the same functionality as encapsulation does
with the benefit of not incurring the overhead of encapsulation.

Tom

> Just like ipsec has has failed where TLS has succeed, same for Mobile IP,
> PMIP, and so on. The narror waist of the internet does not include mobility,
> especially at a level that is transparent to the user.
>
> Just like always on dynamic ipsec for security, fine grain mobility was not
> destine to be included in the routing system.  Best to let go of this
> usecase rather than tilting more at the windmill.
>
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> What is a magician but a practising theorist?
>>                 -- Obi-Wan Kenobi
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>