RE: MIPv6 hopeless

["marcelo bagnulo" <marcelo@it.uc3m.es>]

Hi Masataka,

I concur that MIPv6 as is cannot be used to provide multi-homing
support.
I think that there are parts of MIPv6 that may be recycled into a
multi-homing solution.
That is:

The basic protocol, i.e. the packet formats required to provide
multi-homing support are similar to those required to provide mobility
support (BU, BA), so the protocol itself can be reused (i am not talking
about node behaviors or even roles defined by MIPv6)

Another benefit that could be achieved with a MIPv6 based multi-homing
solution would be to use the CN functionality with the minimum amount of
changes, reducing the deployment effort (since these capabilities are
already there)

I agree with you that the mobile node behavior (in particular the
timers) are not suitable to be used to provide multi-homing support.
Moreover, as you mention, the role of the HA is not appropriate for
multi-homing support.
But at this point it must be noted that the important changes required
are limited to the behavior of the nodes within the multi-homed site
i.e. the nodes that are actually benefiting from the solution, So in
this case it seems reasonable to impose that these nodes have to be
modified.

Regards, marcelo


> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org] En nombre de Masataka Ohta
> Enviado el: lunes, 11 de agosto de 2003 22:25
> Para: Christian Huitema
> CC: J. Noel Chiappa; multi6@ops.ietf.org
> Asunto: MIPv6 hopeless
> 
> 
> Christian;
> 
> > Which is to say, I would be much more confortable examining 
> a specific 
> > proposition, such as "use of MIPv6 to survive re-homing events", 
> > rather than a generic proposition of "let's split".
> 
> At Vienna, I explained three reasons on why MIPv6 is hopeless.
> 
> That is,
> 
> 	its handover is too slow to be useful for any realistic
> 	application
> 
> 	it is server (home agent) based
> 
> 	it reduces MTU to violate the IPv6 specification
> 
> The second one is multi6 specific, while the first and the 
> third ones are generic. But, I think any of the reason is fatal.
> 
> Now, you have a chance for counter argument.
> 
> 							Masataka Ohta
>