Re: [rrg] MIP in a future routing architecture

[Dino Farinacci <dino at cisco.com>]

Did anyone indicate if multicast was a fundamental requirement or  
fundamental component?

Dino

On Nov 25, 2009, at 5:28 PM, Scott Brim wrote:

> HeinerHummel at aol.com allegedly wrote on 11/25/2009 6:09 PM:
> > Whenever I mentioned, how badly MIP is handled by all models of the
> > well-positioned RRG-contributors, the response was silence. In the
> > LISP-mailinglist discussion this issue is officially
> > deferred.Bottom-line: Let's push LISP as it is and let's think  
> > about MIP
> > later, when LISP is well anchored.
> >
> > It seams to me that inside RRG  this issue isn't handled differently.
>
> Lixia pointed out that mobility is a fundamental requirement but not a
> fundamental component.  For any proposal RRG have come up with, there
> are at least several ways to support mobility.  RRG's focus is rightly
> on routing and addressing architecture.  There is reason for  
> confidence
> that whatever we nail down for routing and addressing, we can build
> mobility on top of it.
>
> Scott
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> rrg at irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg