Re: [rrg] Recommendation and what happens next

[Scott Brim <[e-mail]>]

Templin, Fred L allegedly wrote on 03/09/2010 17:22 EST:
> Scott,
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Scott Brim
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 10:44 AM
>> To: Russ White
>> Cc: RRG
>> Subject: Re: [rrg] Recommendation and what happens next
>>
>> 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.
> 
> With IRON/RANGER, the hybrid routing system handles network
> mobility without causing a ripple effect in the BGP. Endpoint
> mobility as you say is not handled by the routing system
> directly, but is rather handled by an adjunct mechanism. We
> have been thinking that HIP would be the natural adjunct
> mechanism to not only handle host-level mobility but also
> to give a true loc/ID split.

Suppose the generic question everyone should answer is "how does the
proposed system constrain or promote specific approaches to endpoint and
network mobility?".  You would say something like: "IRON/RANGER does not
introduce any constraints on endpoint or network mobility approaches, or
make one more appropriate than another."?

thanks ... Scott