Re: WG Review: Mobility for IPv6 (mip6)

[Vijay Devarapalli <vijayd@iprg.nokia.com>]

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> --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.

you are right.

but, I said "offer something substantially more" than MIPv4. I believe
MIPv6 does. it is a wonderful protocol and everybody has been waiting
for a long time to deploy it. I believe features like Route 
optimization, dynamic home agent discovery are what is making this
protocol "a wonderful protocol". :)

anyway, my point is simple.

there are some issues related to MIPv6 deployment that the MIP6 WG
needs to work on immediately. the proposed charter does list them.
spending time on splitting the spec, IMHO, will just take up a lot
of WG time. I dont see a need to split up the spec when we now have
concensus on it. I have no problem with dropping a feature from the
spec as it moves from PS to DS, if nobody deploys a certain feature.

Vijay