I would also like to have my comments on the mobility requirement from
the Group B's draft.
Here is the original text:
" 4.9 Host Mobility
In the Internet Architecture, host-mobility is handled on a
per-host basis by a dedicated, Mobile-IP protocol [6]. Traffic
destined for a mobile-host is explicitly forwarded by dedicated
relay agents. Mobile-IP [6] adequately solves the host-
mobility problem and we do not see a need for any additional
requirements in this area. Of course, the new architecture
MUST NOT impede or conflict with Mobile-IP. "
It seems that the authors consider Mobile-IP is already the solution for
Host Mobility. I'm sure there are many other solutions for solving
Inter-network mobility. Mobile IP is only one of the forwarding mechanisms
of realizing host mobility. Requirements cannot presuppose solutions.
/Yong
-- +46 8 713 8125 (office) +46 70 3487200 (mobile)On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, avri wrote:
> in ngarch-req: > > > There are two kinds of mobility; host mobility and > > network mobility. Host mobility is when an individual > > host moves from where it was to where it is. Network > > mobility is when an entire network (or subnetwork) > > moves. > > > The architecture MUST support network level > > mobility. > > does the absence of statement about requiring host mobility > indicate that this is not something the architecture should > be required to support? > > i think the architecture should support both. > > i am also curious, you state that the two are definitely two > different kinds of things. it seems to me that there may > be architectural abstractions in which 'user' mobility is a > special case of 'network' mobility. i think any future > architecture needs to support both, and if it can do so > through a common method, all the better. > > a. > > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:04 EDT