Re: [Mip4] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-tsirtsis-v4v6-mipv4-01.txt

[Henrik Levkowetz <henrik at levkowetz.com>]

Hi Vijay,

on 2006-04-17 20:46 Vijay Devarapalli said the following:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Henrik Levkowetz [mailto:henrik at levkowetz.com] 
...
>> <hat type="wg-participant">
>> 
>>   I believe that what may have been seen as wrong at that time,
>>   being a distraction to getting MIPv6 completed and out the door,
>>   could very well be seen as right today.  The benefits in terms
>>   of making it possible to access IPv6 services when you have a
>>   MIPv4 infrastructure in place makes it easier to motivate a roll-
>>   out of IPv6 in an enterprise, even if the rest of the world does
>>   not move to IPv6 at the same time, for instance.
> 
> most mobile nodes are dual stack. if an enterprise
> is deploying IPv6, you think upgrading the home 
> agent from MIPv4 to MIPv6 would be difficult? you 
> only need to update the mobile node and the home 
> agent. that would be trivial compared to upgrading 
> the services in the enterpise network to IPv6. I 
> dont buy the argument.

Oh, I think that if the market availability of fine MIPv4 clients
is good, while the market availability of fine MIPv6 clients is
small or non-existent, this is a very strong argument.

The same goes for HAs, of course.  I'm sure you or I would not
have any trouble *upgrading* from one software to another.  That's
not the hard bit.  The hard bit is whether there is market
availability of products and support for them.

>> </hat>
>> 
>> > I tried to lookup the mailing list discussions
>> > at that time, but I wasn't able to "search" the
>> > mobileip archive. here is an URL for the archive.
>> > http://playground.sun.com/mobile-ip/WG-archive/pre-2003/
>> 
>> 
>> <hat type="chair">
>> 
>>   Lifting facts and arguments from the past may be helpful, but
>>   can't override our application of reason to today's situation.
> 
> true.
> 
>>   If there is to be arguments against this proposal, I'd like to
>>   see well-reasoned logic, rather than assumptions that decisions
>>   taken at another time under different circumstances should be
>>   authoritative for today.
>> 
>> </hat>
> 
> uh? being aware of what happened in the past is a 
> good thing. I went looking into the archive to find 
> more information on why the MobileIP WG did not adopt 
> this approach. 

Fine, in that case.


	Henrik

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

-- 
Mip4 mailing list: Mip4 at ietf.org
    Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/