Re: [rrg] Recommendation and what happens next

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

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.

Thanks - Fred
[e-mail]

> Scott
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg