Subject: RE: Optimistic DAD draft ...

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 18:24:24 -0400

Nick per hmip I rest my case :---) below.  I don't have and opinion not
my discipline but I would like to see James, Hesham, you, et al agree
:----) How about for the greater good :--)

/jim

-----Original Message-----
From: James Kempf [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 10:25 AM
To: Nick 'Sharkey' Moore; Bound, Jim
Cc: Alper E. YEGIN; Pekka Savola; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Optimistic DAD draft ...

Nick,

> For example, hmipv6 offers one possible way of eliminating the RTT 
> delay caused by sending BUs. In its current form, it probably isn't 
> scalable to that level, but sadly I don't have a megapolis to test it 
> with -- I'm a research engineer not a product engineer :-)
>

With the latest FMIPv6 draft, HMIP isn't really necessary as a handover
optimization technology, though it can contribute if routers supporting
FMIPv6 are not an option. However, it is very useful for providing a
primitive form of location privacy, because it hides movement within a
geographical area. The European Union issues an opinion last spring
(Opinion 2/2002: On the use of unique identifiers in telecommunications
equipment: the example of IPv6) which discusses location privacy. HMIPv6
would be useful in satisfying that requirement.

W.r.t. scalability, simulation is typically the best way to test
scalability lacking a megapolis. I think it would be extremely useful to
have a simulation of HMIP. There are caveats in using simulation, of
course. I don't think simulation is necessary to go to PS, however, it
will certainly be necessary for recommending HMIP to operators who are
interested in deployment.

                jak

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Nick 'Sharkey' Moore" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 11:37:01 +1000

> :----) How about for the greater good :--)

Should our opinions collide, we'll reconfigure :-)

I guess I'm working from a different angle to most, too:
"What is the minimum required for a useful fast, smooth MIPv6" vs.
"What is the most perfect system which is still implementable".

-----Nick