Subject: RE: [Mip6] Are multihoming mechanisms part of the charter ?

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2003 09:57:51 -0500

>  > I'm sorry I didn't have the time to follow the discussion on the list
>  > recently, so I may be mistaken.
>  > 
>  > I didn't see anything related to interface switiching mechanisms for
>  > mobile hosts, is this something that could be considered in the
>  > definition of the new charter ? I consider this mechanism as
>  > tremendously important if we want to fully deploy mobility.

"Fully deploy mobility"..... I think mobility can be deployed just
as well without having specific solutions for dealing with IF switching
mechanisms. But it is an interesting idea. There has been discussion in
progress since the last IETF with at least 3 I-Ds on this topic. It would
be good to identify what are the problems that IF switching solves and
subsequently what are the requirements. This can be taken up as a first 
step before taking the leap.

-Basavaraj

> 
> => Agreed. I hope we can include that, given the amount of 
> discussion and interest generated before and during the 
> Vienna meeting. 
> 
> Hesham
> 
>  > 
>  > Thierry
>  > 

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:56:37 +0900

Hi,

> mechanisms. 

I used this wording on purpose, I was sure someone would raise a point
here ... Well, if we intend to deploy always connected devices, at
anytime, anywhere, probably the device cannot rely on only one
communication medium. So, I cannot see the deployment of mobility in its
full extend using only one interface.

> But it is an interesting idea. There has been discussion in

OK, so it's time to inform this ML that authors of two of these drafts
have been gathering together to issue a problem statement draft. The
problem statement draft should be ready by end of next week and could be
used as an input to assess what need to be done and where.

But I suspect that MIP modifications is only a part of the work to be
done (but still a necessary part). Actually, I can see multihoming
supportive mechanisms affecting both MIP6, NEMO, and Multi6 WG
activities.

Thierry.