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

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

Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> > 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. :)

:-)

Guys, from recent history of IETF and other SDO related  to mobile
phones: it's not enough to get some protocol into a spec that it gets
deployed.  Getting MIP4 into 3GPP doesn't mean it will get deployed at
all, at least because IPv6 and MIP6 are already in these SDOs specs -
for quite some time - and there's no deployment.  Also, MIP4 got
deployed in some mobile phones and long before the protocols were in
these SDO specs.

So maybe we should distinguish the clients: is the client of a proposed
protocol just another SDO?  Or one operator?  Or several operators
wishing to inter-operate?  Or some phone manufacturer wishing to deploy
it soon?

> > 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. :)

I think that's a real problem that we can't discuss it on the mailing 
list.  Many things happen in the non-IEEE SDOs assuming some secret 
enormous deployment plans.  That is not good.

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/