Hi Glenn, I support your analysis.
John -----Original Message----- From: ext Glenn Morrow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 29 May, 2002 16:45 To: Perkins Charles (IPRG); Loughney John (NRC/Helsinki) Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Hippelainen Lassi (NET/Helsinki); [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Mandating Route Optimization Pros for the mandate: -------------------- Although this may not, initially, seem to be a pro section, it really is. Are these solutions "kludgy", in your opinion, because they are not end to end :)? Is that what you mean by kludgy :)? What are these proposed substitutes and what WG are they being addressed in :)? It does sound to me that some WG will need to take on such work to facilitate multiple systems wishing to provide route optimization to their clients. Operators have no control over whether route optimization is deployed on correspondent nodes or not. It also seems to me that later end to end arguments against these alternate solutions would seem to be ludicrous based upon the decision to NOT make an end to end route optimization a ubiquitous part of IPv6. I.e. you self-proclaimed end to enders had better speak up now or forever hold your peace. I also find it a bit rediculous that people sell IPv6 saying that route optimized mobility is "built-in" to IPv6 when it really is no better than IPv4 in this regard. I.e. ubiquitous route optimization helps the IPv6 business case. Making RO a must places control of low cost diversion/indirection technologies with Operating System manufacturers. Cons: ---- I must also say that even if the end to end solution were ubiquitous and mandated there may still be adequate reasons (location privacy, speed, security, more optimizations with other IETF soft-state technologies) to use the non end to end solutions. Making RO a must places control of low cost diversion/indirection technologies with Operating System manufacturers. --------- I hope this helps people understand just exactly what is being decided here :) - Charlie Perkins wrote - > Route Optimization will motivate the introduction of kludgy > substitutes, much as the lack of address space for IPv4 has > motivated the introduction of NATs. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
