At 01:14 PM 4/10/02 -0700, Alex Zinin wrote:
>Frank,
>
>Wednesday, April 10, 2002, 12:51:08 PM, Kastenholz, Frank wrote:
>> Alex
>
>> I was just talking about the host mobility side of
>> things. The requirements say that the routing system
>> need not address host-mobility because mobile-ip seems
>> to adequately cover it (if we're wrong, we'd like to
>> know -- hence my note :-)
>
>> As to network mobility (where, loosely, we can assume a
>> 1:1 relationship between networks and IP prefixes), it
>> seems to me that if the network moves, then its prefix
>> "appears someplace else" in the topology. That seems to
>> be "routing" to me.
>
>So, here you seem to assume (correct me if this is not so)
>that such a prefix is assigned to the network and gets
>announced from different spots in the topology as the net
>moves around. If so, this would be too much of an assumption
>about a specific architecture, because as I said before,
>one could come up with an architecture where all addresses
>are topologically significant and so our mobile network
>would get a new prefix each time it moves to a new distinct
>piece of topology.
Well, then the section of the architectural spec
where network mobility is discussed will be real short...
>Regarding host mobility, I do not see a reason why a specific
>existing technology needs to constrain the requirements.
>I mean, if a new architecture allows a better approach than
>we have now--let's consider it. See below as well.
The wording of the requirements is that any new
architecture is not _required_ to do host-mobility.
It is not, however, prohibited from doing it.
Frank Kastenholz
==================================================
My preferrred signature is:
This information is for the sole use of
whoever receives it and may contain confusing,
enlightening, enraging, entertaining,
irritating, or just plain stupid information,
including without limitation, double-secret-
probation information belonging to [CENSORED
BY THE NSA/FBI/MOUSE]. Any unauthorized review,
use, disclosure, or distribution outside of an
establishment serving alchohol is prohibited on
days that do not end in Y.
But our ******'d lawyers would rather have:
=======================================
This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient (s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information, including without
limitation, Confidential and/or Proprietary Information belonging to
Unisphere Networks, Inc. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original
message.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:04 EDT