Subject: [Mip6] RE: [nemo] Consensus call on making ID draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunn elaMIP6/NEMO WGs document

From: "Soliman, Hesham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 15:44:31 -0400

> > - I personally feel that IPv4 HoA support proposed in 
 > draft-soliman is
 > > a strong feature that can benefit mobile users, which may 
 > accelerate
 > > deployment of MIPv6. Note that we don't need MIPv4 
 > signaling in such
 > > case, but we just need small modifications to the MIPv6 stack.
 > 
 > I still think this IPv4 mobility support in IPv6 should be 
 > discussed in 
 > MIP4 WG.
 > If people use v6 applications, v4 mobility is not important.
 > 

=> Are you assuming that People will use MIPv4 for their
v4 apps and MIPv6 for their v6 apps? If that you're assumption
I can understand why you reached that solution. I don't agree with
that assumption, or rather I think we should avoid this scenario. It's 
very inefficient if you're really using MIP for mobility management. I.e.
local and global all handoffs ...etc. 

So it seems like this kind of disagreement can be discussed in the 
context of scenarios and problem statement. I hope we can avoid
this early rush into "solutions discussions" without understanding 
the problems. It hasn't worked before. There is no reason why it 
would work now.

Hesham

 > regards,
 > ryuji

===========================================================
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
 of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly
 prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender
 and delete all copies.
===========================================================

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6