Re: how mobile do we want to be

[marcelo bagnulo braun <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>]

Hi Thierry,

El 18/03/2005, a las 10:03, Thierry Ernst escribió:
> Note - I'm repeating myself - than I don't say I oppose a WG, but:
>
> - I think experimental RFC would make better sense than draft standards
> (this would give room to work on a focused topic without risk such an
> architectural change is deployed without considering mobility; at
> the same time this would allow time for other researching on the
> mobility aspects so that draft standards are produced when the question
> has been fully pondered.

I don't think we have time for exprimental RFc here. Multihoming is a 
very real problem today. We need to provide a solution a couple of 
years ago. The risk of not doing so is becoming too high. For instance 
see the policy proposal for PI allocations in the ARIn region. the 
community will not wait anymore for us discussing and expremineting, 
they will strat assigning PI addresses and blow the bgp table.

For this reason, we need to deliver a standard tracks multihoming 
solution ASAP.

regards, marcelo


>   => I would like to make sure this point is discussed when the WG is 
> to
> be approved/disapproved.
>
> - a twin IRTF work would be nice to look into the wider aspects such as
> mobility
>
> - a word saying that the WG will focus on the sole site
> multihoming aspect initially, but that it will consider mobility
> later
>
> - a word saying that the shim6 solution must make sure other standards
> such as MIP6, NEMO can work unchanged (no hurt - this was seconded by
> other people on this thread and at the BOF): this implies an analysis
> document.
>
> Thierry