Re: [rrg] Recommendation and what happens next

Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com> Tue, 09 March 2010 18:44 UTC

Return-Path: <scott.brim@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rrg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 601A83A6963 for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:44:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FKq3YEEyMhNp for <rrg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:44:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com (fg-out-1718.google.com [72.14.220.159]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7D063A68B2 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 9 Mar 2010 10:44:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 16so3029022fgg.1 for <rrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:44:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-enigmail-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3r3vOIBKoftX4Q5PUEvmZH8YP1mhE797J2UOWMgaF0s=; b=H6qAak/MVLLwW0rhe69oJLBC5hV0xZuOd2xVkOi47j/VcZATmTPkZADSeR+zi4iJzQ OXpX5HH7OqUqAU3tpYHMScwc4NkIRsR45fQCmElyHvz73Te80Qzo8l/5CK1vynevvzq8 OM/pGN8K78sVjM+WgQPXkece2iNFer/etrXlk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=KjhgBaFRpLrmGVTKFPYvdlrLhkjwXNOuSOUKKX042FK/NoC9o3fMcFFip71NUai0e8 mERw4qnCI7Hnusl6dCm1dztJEwavUeGelTqTNCK42TSi4fZ/AnoGfrSocZ8q/GCQmPgh yHKZ4VXKGT3B01WN4JO0vTICmOEt9SFZt6514=
Received: by 10.87.70.31 with SMTP id x31mr852614fgk.19.1268160265621; Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:44:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sbrim-mbp.local (198-135-0-233.cisco.com [198.135.0.233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 15sm198372fxm.4.2010.03.09.10.44.22 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Tue, 09 Mar 2010 10:44:23 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4B969703.3040901@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 13:44:19 -0500
From: Scott Brim <scott.brim@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100227 Thunderbird/3.0.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Russ White <russ@cisco.com>
References: <C7B951B7.4F5D%tony.li@tony.li> <4B945997.9080704@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B945997.9080704@cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: RRG <rrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [rrg] Recommendation and what happens next
X-BeenThere: rrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IRTF Routing Research Group <rrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/rrg>
List-Post: <mailto:rrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg>, <mailto:rrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 18:44:27 -0000

Russ White allegedly wrote on 03/07/2010 20:57 EST:
> A second thing might be to address mobility. How does each proposal deal
> with host level mobility, since this is obviously a direction in the
> Internet at large (whether we like it or not, mobile phones and other
> such devices are going to rely increasingly on the Internet, which
> may--or may not--place a larger burden on the routing system).

The routing system does not deal with endpoint mobility directly and
cannot make many predictions about how it will be handled.  However,
each proposal does set up the framework in which mobility has to be
designed, and can constrain how mobility can be done.  It would be good
if each proposal listed the assumptions it makes, and the constraints it
puts on, both endpoint and network mobility.

Scott