 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Vijay,
on 2006-04-26 00:45 Vijay Devarapalli said the following: ...well, one of the justification that folks were using was an enterprise network that was using MIPv4 already and was deploying IPv6 services. this is what we were discussing and I was arguing it would be trivial to update the client and the home agent while updating the network for IPv6 services.
If I go back and look at the initial posts in this thread, the only one who mentioned enterprises was I, and if you read that post again, you'll see that I'm *not* assuming that the MIPv4 infrastructure is in the enterprise, only that it is used by the enterprise. So there seems to have been a bit of a misunderstanding here...
I think it started with Alpesh's incremental upgrade comment and then George. but never mind.
now talking about an operator using MIPv4 and wanting to carry IPv6 over MIPv4 tunnels, yes its possible. but does anybody want to do this?
One expample:
Currently there are 2 proposals for multi-access mobility in
3GPP, one which proposes MIPv6 with v4trans additions (from
Ericsson) and one proposing MIPv4.
well, I was one of the people involved in proposing the MIPv4 solution when I was at Nokia. :)
If the MIPv4 proposal goes through (I don't think that's optimal, but I think it may happen) then the kind of functionality we're talking about here will be hotly required in a few years. About the time we can have an RFC out and ready for reference if we start now.
I can say with reasonable confidence that folks who are pushing MIPv4 for multi-access mobility in 3GPP like MIPv6 also and would rather deploy MIPv6. but thats a discussion we can't have on the mailing list. :)
Vijay
-- 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/