Following up on this old thread...
I'm a little worried about the "MUST support" wording
here. Specifically, one could envision an architecture,
where mobility is absolutely transparent to the routing
system by making address be always topologically signi-
ficant and having a separate mechanism for name-to-address
mapping...
Am I worrying too much here?
Alex
Tuesday, March 5, 2002, 8:24:59 AM, 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