From: Shiao-Li Tsao \(Charles\) (sltsao_at_no.spam)
Date: Mon Mar 25 2002 - 02:42:59 PST
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, changwen wrote:
> > > > On the question of why such MNv6s need to worry about IPv4, the
> > fundamental
> > > > question is whether we should limit the freedom of such MNv6s
> > unreasonbaly
> > > > and whether we should support ubiquitous computing/roaming? I think
the
> > > > answer should be obvious.
> > >
> > > Disagree: the solution comes with a terrible price.
> >
> > Please elaborate on why the terrible price.
>
> Have a look at your draft to see why. MIPv4 at MN's, MIPv4 FA's, 6to4
> border routers MIPv4 HA's, no MIPv6 route optimization...
Yes. I agree too. Your draft put too much requirement and implementation
efforts on HA, MN, and border routers although you claim no new protocols
are introduced.
>
> > > The link to the paper Tim sent on the list would make one assume that
IPv4
> > > connectivity can be enabled with more ease for MNv6's.
> >
> > I don't have access to the full paper. However judged by the abstract in
the
> > web link
> >
(http://link.springer.de/link/service/series/0558/bibs/2158/21580205.htm),
> > clearly, in my best guess, the paper tries to solve issue of how to make
> > mobile node (v4/v6?) transparently communicate with the IPv4 Internet,
which
> > is a different subject from mine. So I won't compare apples with
oranges.
>
> Whatever, I wouldn't know about that since it isn't a clear to me what
> _actual_ problem your draft seems to try to solve.
>
> > > The case that HAv6 would not be able to operate with IPv4 addresses is
not
> > > a case we need to worry about IMO.
> > >
> > > Please define 'roaming' exactly.
> >
> > One can find the definition in any English dictionary and that what used
in
> > my draft. I believe that is also what used in RFC 3024, RFC 2977, and
> > draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-16.txt. FYI, it means: to go around without
> > particular place to go or wander.
>
> Yes, I know what the word means, but to you it seems to mean something
> else, e.g. IPv4 nodes being able to communicate with IPv6 nodes.
I don't understand the definition of "roaming" "here" either. It is not
clear to me what you exactly mean by "the third is the roaming support in
IPv4 domain".
Charles
>
> --
> 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