Hi Henrik,
Jumping in to add 2 cents below
> on 2005-03-22 8:14 pm Karim El-Malki (AL/EAB) said the following:
> > I agree with what you are saying regarding L2 triggers and
> > deployment. However I have a comment on the technical
> > argument and the FMIP/LLH discussion. The issue is not
> > whether FMIP is superior to LLH or viceversa. My argument
> > is that they are basically the same thing and use the same
> > set of messages between MN and FA: proxy router solicitation,
> > proxy router advertisement, registration request/FBU.
> > I can't see how one can be better than the other. I'm also
> > not surprised since FMIPv4 is a v6-ification on FMIPv6 while
> > FMIPv6 and LLH specs were made similar in the first place.
>
> No, the similarity is not surprising, and more importantly, we're
> not saying one is inherently better than the other. If that was
> the case, there would be no sense in having both head for
> experimental.
>
> Quite to the contrary, we should hope to gain experience with both,
> to increase our understanding and work towards something which
> may later be standardised.
=> I understand we'd want to do that when we see two (or more)
proposals doing things differently and/or are suited to different
environments, and/or are making different assumptions.
The only things I see different here are:
1. Packtization of information (and different names)
2. Allowing IP handover after L2 handover.
I don't see how 1) is worth pursuing, but 2) would be interesting.
For 2), why don't we revive PFANE from the route opt draft. It seems
like the most useful part of that old draft.
