"Kastenholz, Frank" <FKastenholz@unispherenetworks.com> writes:
> If one proposes an architecture that does host-mobility, great. If
> one proposes an architecture that does not do host mobility, that's
> just as great. The reason is that host mobility seems to be a solved
> problem (Mobile IP). We chose to require that the architecture solve
> the unsolved problem (mobile networks).
From where I look, I understand that Mobile IP does not involve at all
the routing system, it puts boxes at various places at the leaves.
But, IMHO, more experience is needed before considering host mobility
a "solved problem".
The mobile networks à la monet, or in other papers, seem to be
designed under the same set of constraints as Mobile IP, namely
without touching the routing system. I would suppose though that,
while a mobile node is forbidden to inject routes due to scalability
concerns, the same would not apply to a set of homogeneously-moving
nodes, that form a subnet, and that would inject entire prefixes
instead of single routes. Is routing of the envisaged future
architecture going to support this kind of mobility or the kind where
one adds boxes?
Just a thought,
Alex
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:04 EDT