--On 4. september 2003 12:03 -0700 Vijay Devarapalli
<vijayd@iprg.nokia.com> wrote:
but, MIPv6 without RO is not very useful. it wouldnt be very different
from MIPv4. just like we want IPv6 to be something more than just larger
address space, we wanted MIPv6 to offer something substanstially more
than what is in MIPv4.
I have a bit of a problem with this logic.
If there are user requirements, or areas of applicability, that MIPv6 with
Route Optimization can meet, and MIPv6 without Route Optimization can't,
and those are worth the cost, sure.
Same for other features.
But just "being different from MIPv4" shouldn't be a goal in itself.
(btw - if IPv6 offers nothing substantial except larger addresses, I still
think it's worth it. different discussion.)