Subject: [mobile-ip] Mobile Router conversation

From: "T.J. Kniveton" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 20:00:09 +0300

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: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2001 11:06:14 +0300

Mattias Pettersson wrote:
> > 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.
> > 
> 
> Throw in a NAT, if you want a quick solution... ;)
> 

This is very important point, IMO, since NAT in the mobile router will most
likely be the implementation effort benchmark considered by vendors
implementing mobile routers for PANs. And for IPv4 probably the only
implementation choice available.

Just keep this in mind when considering the candidate solutions,

	Jarno