john.loughney@nokia.com writes:
> > 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).
Yes. I will not dare to make pretentious arguments, but the above
problems seem to me to be only part of a larger issue. The current
view in seamoby and micro-mobility or local mobility relates mostly to
what happens in a small domain, most often a leaf, connected or
isolated. But none takes into account the bigger picture where those
alternative routing systems interact with the other "classic" routing
systems. Would local mobility management work with or without Mobile
IP? How would lmm affect the stability and convergence of IGP's and
EGP's?
I would reckon that some of these routing/mobility issues have been
addressed previously but under different names, not "mobility" per se;
and I'm actively looking for references about this, thanks for
pointing me to the right texts.
Alex
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Aug 04 2003 - 04:10:04 EDT