Subject: [rrg] MIP in a future routing architecture

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 18:09:21 EST

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

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:13:32 -0800

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, [email-masked] wrote:

> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> rrg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

---

From: Scott Brim <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 20:28:28 -0500

[email-masked] allegedly wrote on 11/25/2009 6:09 PM:
> 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.
>  

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

---

From: Dino Farinacci <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 17:35:41 -0800

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

Dino