[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: how mobile do we want to be
On 14 mar 2005, at 12.30, Geoff Huston wrote:
This sounds like a charter discussion point to me- I'm not sure I
heard you raise it in the BOF last week, although mobility was
mentioned a number of times in the BOF.
Indeed, and I did raise it several times during the BoF. Rather
insistently I thought. and with some support from others in the room,
The point I raised there, was that it did not make sense to make the
kind of major surgery we are doing to the IP, the so called stem of the
hourglass, without also considering the implications and opportunities
for mobility. During the years of Multi6, this was out of scope. As
we are currently discussing a new charter, a charter for a major change
to IP, I think it is important to take system motion, or non MIP
mobility, into account.
I don't think this is a helpful characterization, nor does it apply to
the overwhelming majority of the 160,000 prefixes we see in V4, or the
somewhat lesser number of prefixes in IPv6.
At this point, if I understand the mechanisms of MIP properly, this
sort of movement would not show up in the prefixes.
also when you look at the kind of mobility we expect with portable
devices (though currently committed to a MIP6 framework) I think it is
natural to assume that more of the end systems will be mobile as time
There is a Mobile IPv6 working group, and the place to consider the
various aspects of mobility in IPv6 is within that working group.
I don't think so. The Mobile IPv6 WG is dedicated to a specific
solution to mobility. The only solution that seems currently available
without the separation of identifier and locator. If, however, we
change that major assumption (ie. that Locator == Identifier) there
perhaps additional solution fall out of the split. And while they have
an interest in assuring that shim6 does not break their solution, I see
no reason why the ability of shim6 to support network motion is in
their charter. I think they are a WG dedicated to a specific solution.
In this case the opportunity of a new means to support system motion
needs to be explored. We had years of exploring the multi6 solution
space. It seems to me that we should spend at least a little time
exploring the possibility that shim6 would offer solutions on the
system motion side as well. This is the reason I think that
a. the system and network in motion aspect should not be out of charter
b. that at the very least a design team should be set up as part of the
proposed WG, with a specific milestone, to explore the implications for
systems and network in motion (ie. non MIP mobility).
To re-noodle over their work in shim6 is not entirely a helpful
As I argue above, this is not a re-noodling, but a different way to
look at the network architecture. I think it would be irresponsible
for us to not do an analysis of the implications of such a major
Perhaps a more helpful starting point in terms of scoping this work is
the architecture draft prepared in the nulti6 context
(http://draft-ietf-multi6-architecture.potaroo.net) (and in the
context of this area of locator switching and the concept of a
dynamically changing locator pool perhaps section 6 is a good starting
It is good as far as it goes and is a very informative document, but it
does not explore non MIP mobility. I beleive this needs to be explored
as part of the chartering effort.