Re: [rrg] Recommendation and what happens next

["Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

Scott,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Brim [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2010 8:45 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L
> Cc: Russ White; RRG
> Subject: Re: [rrg] Recommendation and what happens next
> 
> 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?".

That is a very good question.

> 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."?

That is also correct. Although I named a specific
endpoint mobility approach, there is nothing in
IRON/RANGER that would introduce any unfavorable
constraints to other approaches.

Thanks - Fred
[e-mail]

> 
> thanks ... Scott