From: Pekka Savola (pekkas_at_no.spam)
Date: Sat Mar 23 2002 - 09:05:35 PST
On Sun, 24 Mar 2002, Shiao-Li Tsao (Charles) wrote:
> Personally, I think mobility in transition network should be investigated.
> However, the preliminary study <MOVING> shows that most of the mobility in
> v4v6 transition is either trivial or the solutions are straightforward.
> Maybe some other situations need to be discussed if we can show the specific
> scenarios are pratical or they attract global interestings.
> Otherwise, I don't see any new ngtrans tool needs be introduced at the
> current stage.
I think I agree.
For clarification (I think you agreed) the point I tried to make is: all
users might be interested of MIPv6, but with IPv6 connectivity, that is no
problem. Those that have existing MIPv4 infrastructure and want to use
that are very rare, and every document should not be bogged down by these;
the MIPv4 mobility requirements/possibilities should be reviewed
separately, in case-by-case basis if need be.
btw. Changwen Liu's MIPv6 over MIPv4 draft which was also presented at
IETF53 has IPR concerns which makes it even more totally unusable.
-- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri Oct 06 2006 - 00:00:32 PDT