Re: [rrg] MIP in a future routing architecture

Thank you, Dino, for updating me wrt LISP&mobility and for sending the Meyer-draft.

I do understand the organizational arguments with the LISP-charter.

But wrt RRG, the mobility issue should have highest priority.

Obviously, you can cater for mobility on top of whichever routing architecture. Proof: MIP4.

But in search of a future routing architecture you can also come up with something that doesn't depend on a home-agent and which is also most appropriate for mobile nodes, i.e. some other than a mobility-jack-up solution.

Heiner

In einer eMail vom 26.11.2009 00:13:54 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt dino at cisco.com:

Dave Meyer presented LISP-MN in the IETF Friday morning LISP WG
meeting. The ID is enclosed. Dave can forward the slides he used to
present.

Dino

On Nov 25, 2009, at 3:09 PM, HeinerHummel at aol.com wrote:

> 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.
>
> Heiner
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> rrg at irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg