> I am very pessimist about the future of mobile IPv6 > because the improvements over mobile IPv4 fully rely on the routing > optimization: as someone explained, there are only two kinds of common > correspondent nodes: web servers, but to deal with routing optimization > with its security, hard state binding cache, etc, is too expensive so > shan't be done, and mobile terminals (handsets, PDAs, (robust) laptops), > the problem is the design team didn't consider this special case (aka > mobile to mobile)... We are trying to save something but most of the > marvellous promises of mobile IPv6 can already be considered as hype.
Francis, I don't share you pessimism. I think the claim that there are only two types of CNs that matter for mobile IPv6 (Web servers and mobile terminals) is a bit odd. That is similar to saying that since most of the traffic on the internet is http why don't be build an http network instead of an IP network? The point is that the value of the Internet comes from service/application independence - people can build new services and applications and have them run on the Internet today - no need to upgrade things in the middle to deploy new things. So building a http + voip network is the wrong thing to do and the above statement sounds like it would be the right approach which is why I disagree with it rather strongly. Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
