Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] Mobile Router conversation

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 10:38:05 -0700 (PDT)

TJ,

Thanx for bringing this up.

IMHO, the MIP group should concentrate on MIP for hosts. There are
enough problems there to keep the group busy, and more will emerge
as MIP begins to see wider deployment (example: the NAT/VPN discussion
at IETF 51). 

While I can't claim to have studied the problem in much detail, I
wonder if perhaps we shouldn't return to first principles when
trying to solve the mobile router problem, rather than trying to
shoehorn the solution into a MIP framework. We could probably come
up with a solution within the MIP framework for a limited class of mobile 
networks, but we may regret adopting the solution later when people
try to modify it for more complex cases and it doesn't work. That 
said, I can understand completely the desire to try to come up
with a solution within the MIP framework, especially for cases
such as a PAN, since they look like they may be coming along sooner
than expected.

		jak

>X-Delivered-For: <[email-masked]>
>X-mProtect: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 10:00:23 -0700 Nokia Silicon Valley Messaging 
Protection
>Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 20:00:09 +0300
>From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
>To: [email-masked]
>Subject: [mobile-ip] Mobile Router conversation
>
>Hi folks,
>I am really glad to see so much conversation in the Mobile Router
>thread. It is clear that there is a lot of interest in this topic, and
>the problem is understood, though the problem scope needs more
>definition.
>
>This week I am at our office in Helsinki, where it is very difficult for
>me to read or send messages from this address, and for the next three
>weeks I'll be on vacation. So I will not be able to participate until I
>return to the US in a month, at which point I'm hoping the problem will
>already be solved.  (Just kidding)
>
>One question I would like to pose, is the best way to address this issue
>going forward, and I would appreciate comments from the WG chairs and
>ADs as well. There has already been draft activity and discussion of
>this issue in the WG meetings, and I heard Phil R. say at IETF51 that
>although the WG title specifically mentions mobile HOSTS, mobile
>networks are not excluded from the charter per se. So what is the best
>way to tackle this? Continue status quo? Design team? BOF? .....?
>
>Talk to you all in September...
>-TJ
>

---

From: Mattias Pettersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 14:30:15 +0200

James Kempf wrote:
> try to modify it for more complex cases and it doesn't work.

Exactly my point too!

But we should at least start with the two I-Ds that exist. Is "Prefix
Scoped BU" enough as a start? Maybe, in some cases. The requirements I-D
should reflect the discussions we have here.

> That

Throw in a NAT, if you want a quick solution... ;)

/Mattias