[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [mobile-ip] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-tsirtsis-dsmip-problem-00.txt
> > => Sure there are other approaches. However, our limiting factor
> > is existing deployment. We want to deal with existing problems
> > on the Internet that can be solved gradually. HIP does not do
> > that now because a) it does not exist in standards or products,
> > b) clearly not deployed, c) it has difficult problems that
> > have not begun to be addressed (e.g. hierarchical name
> space ...etc).
> > At this moment in time it is an idea that was prototyped and
> > we all know the time it takes from conception to deployment.
> > Look at v6 which was introduced for a much more tangible problem
> > than the problems HIP is intended to solve, yet, 10 years later,
> > deployment is still in its infancy (on a global level). So we need
> > to realise these issues (in fact they are _the_ issues to
> > think about) and not only look at the technical challenges.
>
> I believe the intent of surfacing HIP is not to produce a
> Proposed Standard
> but rather to do a set of Experimental drafts that would
> serve as a basis
> for further work, somewhat similar to mipshop and the FMIPv4
> work. That work
> would presumably involve the operational issues you talk
> about [1], in
> addition to technical issues.
=> Ok, good to know. But HIP (whatever it becomes) is not
useful for us or any deployment right now because this
is a transition problem from existing MIPv4 deployment.
> [1] Note that these issues also apply to MIPv6. I don't know
> of anybody
> today offering commercial MIPv6 service, and when somebody
> does, we will
> probably see the same kind of operational issues arise in
> the MIPv6 WG that
> are currently being dealt with by the MIPv4 WG.
=> I'm sure there will be. The issues I mentioned
above about HIP are not operational, they are fundamental
and non-trivial technical issues. But I don't want to
discuss it here because it's off topic for this
draft.
Hesham
>