[Battlemesh] Host Identity Protocol, any experience?
tomh at tomh.org
Mon Nov 28 22:00:17 CET 2016
On 11/28/2016 11:10 AM, willi uebelherr wrote:
> Dear Tom,
> we have to separate something in this discussion in the architectural
> 1) Under some conditions, mobile devices change her AP space. And this
> means, it can be possible to use an open session with his move.
> This is mostly not necessary for laptops or notebooks. This can be
> necessary for handheld, small mobile device.
> And this mechanism is only necessary to continue an open session. If we
> create a new session, we work with this new AP space.
> 2) Under such specific conditions it is not necessary to inflate more
> and more this confusion in the IP stack.
> 3) This living sessions (TCP, UDP) was started from a specific AP with
> the communication partner inside or outside of this AP space. And this
> specific mobile device change the AP space. Therefore for me, it will be
> much clearer and simpler, to conentrate to this temporal action, the
> forwarding. Based on this focus to the AP's, a device with much more
> resources, mostly, it will be much easier to organise the following of
> the pakets.
> And this is the basic architectural goal of the Mobil-IP. The
> implementation maybe can be the same nonsense like in the HIP area.
If one looks generally at the two architectures (MIP, HIP), one can see
many similarities in the approaches, from different starting points and
emphases. MIP was originally oriented towards home-agent tunneling,
while HIP was originally oriented more towards end-to-end handling of
mobility. But MIP was later extended for route optimization, and HIP
was later extended with home-agent-like functionality (HIP rendezvous
servers, HIP relays).
I was not advocating for HIP here, merely trying to clarify and summarize.
More information about the Battlemesh