Subject: RE: [Mip6] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-mip6-nemo-v4traversal-00.txt

From: "Soliman, Hesham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:53:53 -0400

> > The draft is written to allow implementers and operators 
 > to use MIPv6
 > > only no matter where they are on the Internet and for v6 
 > and v4 apps.
 > 
 > Hesham, that is a hefty goal.  I'd reach lower, do some small modular
 > parts that would fit in the current landscape, instead of building
 > entirely new architectures, solutions to everything a customer might
 > ever need.

=> You might have had a point if there was no proof that this could
be done. The draft is already out there, it's been implemented
(except for the NAT traversal part). So there is proof that this is 
doable with trivial extensions to MIPv6.

 > In the past, "universal" mobility solutions have had lesser 
 > reach than
 > expected.  For example, real complete local and global mobility
 > solutions haven't seen widepsread use despite years of discussion
 > meeting after meeting, mail after mail.

=> Apples and oranges. One has nothing to do with the other. Furthermore,
you're attributing what you see as a failure to a specific 
reason, for which you have no proof. BTW, we have commercial deployments
of some of those mechanisms that you claim no one has adopted.

 > So you agree that DSMIPv6 would compete with MIPv4 to offer 
 > reachability
 > at a permanent MIP4 Home Address, when connected to a v4-only network
 > and v4 app.

=> Yes; for a green field operator/vendor that has no
products to build on.

Hesham

===========================================================
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

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:50:13 +0200

Soliman, Hesham wrote:

>> Hesham, that is a hefty goal.  I'd reach lower, do some small 
>> modular parts that would fit in the current landscape, instead of 
>> building entirely new architectures, solutions to everything a 
>> customer might ever need.
> 

It is good to know there is an implementation of DSMIPv6 (w/o the NAT
traversal part).  It is good to know that it's doable.

>> In the past, "universal" mobility solutions have had lesser reach 
>> than expected.  For example, real complete local and global 
>> mobility solutions haven't seen widepsread use despite years of 
>> discussion meeting after meeting, mail after mail.
> 
> => Apples and oranges. One has nothing to do with the other. 
> Furthermore, you're attributing what you see as a failure to a 
> specific reason, for which you have no proof.

I don't, I attribute that to intuition.

> BTW, we have commercial deployments of some of those mechanisms that
> you claim no one has adopted.

Any proof of that?

I'd be happy to learn a certain experimental RFC got deployed on a
larger scale than lab.  It could be used as a strong argument for
changing status quickly.

>> reachability at a permanent MIP4 Home Address, when connected to a 
>> v4-only network and v4 app.
> 
> => Yes; for a green field operator/vendor that has no products to 
> build on.

I don't quite get that, please explain.

In what case would an operator/vendor have to choose between MIP4 and
DSMIPv6?  What's "green field operator"?

Alex