Anyway, my point is that 1) above is not an issue today because it already
happens on a very large scale, so requiring it for a specific feature like
multihoming is hardly a leap. I can imagine ads for "download your wireless
optimiser from wwww.operator.com and save money" (ok not very creative).
The subtle difference between 1) and 2) is IMO a moot point anyway because
2) simply says that operators don't want protocol support in the network,
but that support already exists in the form of PMIP and if you have PMIP you
have MIP.
While I agree that having PMIP equates to having MIP, it is only from the
perspective of the fact that the LMA is also a DSMIP6 HA. But this fact is
of no use in actual deployments. An LMA will not operate as a DSMIP6 HA
unless there is explicit support enabled for it to operate as an HA. I just
don't see the LMA accepting BUs from a (DS)MIP6 MN or establishing IPsec SAs
to secure the signaling.