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

[Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu at motorola.com>]

Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> on 2006-04-21 01:38 Vijay Devarapalli said the following: ...
> > > > I already disputed this argument. whats incremental about
> > > > deploying IPv6? compared to deploying IPv6 services, upgrading
> > > > your home agent and mobile node from MIPv4 to MIPv6 would be
> > > > trivial. I don't buy this argument.
> > > So I guess I'll have to repeat my refutation too.  Whether you 
> > > buy it or not, being able to deploy a MIPv6 agent on your client 
> > > platform is vitally dependent on the commercial availability of 
> > > fine client software for that platform.
> > they are available. I don't see this as an issue.
>
> I understand that you don't see it as an issue.  However, as you 
> aren't the one who will have to upgrade your infrastructure, and some
> people who are deploying MIP4 are asking for this, I don't see that
> we can ignore them because this is not an issue for you...
>
> > > Whether you as an individual find it trivial to perform an
> > > upgrade is neither here nor there in this context.
> > I am not talking about "myself". I am talking about an enterprise
> > upgrading their clients from MIPv4 to MIPv6 while upgrading them to
> > use IPv6 services.
>
> You're assuming that the device which is running IPv6 apps is the
> same as the one with the MIPv4 client.  This is not necessarily true.
>
>
> > > And furthermore, upgrading the client in thousands or millions of
> > >  deployed low-end devices can hardly be considered 'trivial',
> > > even if the software is available and will fit in the flash
> > > memory of the device, which is not at all guaranteed.
> > the clients are being upgraded for IPv6 services anyway. whats
> > special about upgrading the clients from MIPv4 to MIPv6?
>
> Nope.  Think a phone model which may have just enough flash for 
> MIPv4, but not enough flash for the additional IPsec and MIPv6 
> functionality.

Just to deviate the discussion away from the memory footprint.  There
are at least two mobile phone manufacturers mass-marketing devices
running IPv4.  At least two of those models were demonstrated to running
also MIPv6 over WiFi.

The issue to integrate MIPv6/IPsec in a high-end mobile phone is not a
memory footprint issue.  I.e. there's enough memory to run a MIP6 stack
together with IPsec.  In these kinds of phones there's usually an entire
jvm running, a web browser, a bluetooth stack - all of them largely
overcoming the size of a MIP6/IPsec stack.

The issue with the mobile phones is the need: what user needs MIP when
IPv4 over GPRS/UMTS is mobile enough for the battery it has?  What user
needs IPv6 when there's no deployed cell running IPv6?  Once the need is
clear, there's enough computing cycles and bits available in a phone to
do both native MIP4 and native MIP6.

Alex

--
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/