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 ietf.org
Web interface: https://w
ww1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
Charter page: h
ttp://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/
|