[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Mip6] Re: RE : [DNA] Current IETF-Draft version - POLIMAND
- To: NJEDJOU Eric FTRD/DMR/REN <eric.njedjou@francetelecom.com>, Gregory Daley <Greg.Daley@eng.monash.edu.au>
- Subject: Re: [Mip6] Re: RE : [DNA] Current IETF-Draft version - POLIMAND
- From: James Kempf <kempf@docomolabs-usa.com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Mar 2004 23:30:18 -0800
- Cc: Pekka Nikander <pekka.nikander@nomadiclab.com>, Stefan Aust <aust@comnets.uni-bremen.de>, basavaraj.patil@nokia.com, Carmelita Görg <cg@comnets.uni-bremen.de>, "Niko A. Fikouras" <niko@comnets.uni-bremen.de>, Cornel Pampu <cornel.pampu@siemens.com>, Dna <dna@eng.monash.edu.au>, Greg Daley <greg.daley@eng.monash.edu.au>, mip6@ietf.org
<BBBE5BAA3B351C488C415EA662EA8840AD9734@ftrdmel2.rd.francetelecom.fr>
Sender: owner-dna@ecselists.eng.monash.edu.au
Precedence: bulk
> Well these protocols (CARD, CTP, FMIP, HMIP) could not and can not be
ready for deployment as they essentially assume that IPv6, then Mobile
IPv6
be deployed, at least partially, as the aforementionned protocols rely
on
IPv6 and mobile IPv6. Mobile IPv6 products are now coming out from
vendors
shelves. We can avoid to wait for (CARD, CTP, FMIP, HMIP) before
providing
optimisation for MIPv6 handover by bringing "simple" additions to the
base
specification that would already provide smoother handover as a sort of
"work around". Then when we would get enough feedback from MIPv6
deployment
issues we would be able to rethink at the way CARD,... Could be adapted.
>
CARD and CTP are independent of IP version. As for FMIP, there are two
versions, one for IPv4 and one for IPv6.
jak