Hi all,
> "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".
I agree. One difficulty with Mobile IP is that it forces the device
to send to/from a new IP address (care-of-address). Since most signaling
protocols have been designed to be end-to-end with static IP addresses,
Moblle IP introduces some disruptions where either the signaling
connections need to be re-established, or the state needs to be
transfered to the new point of attachment (something being done in SeaMoby).
Anyhow, I do have an action point to organize folks into looking into
mobililty (or micromobility) routing. There have been many proposals,
most involving some sort of host-routing. Due to my day job, progress
hasn't gone far on this subject. Hopefully, after this IETF, we can
put some documents together & I can ping the list for review.
thanks,
John
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:04 EDT