Charlie, sorry to trip a player in the same team, but there is a certain satisfaction not unlike playing chess against a Grand Master and not losing on the first move...
> -----Original Message----- > From: Perkins Charles (IPRG) <...> > Here are some facts: > > A. A mobile device transmitting data to a correspondent node will > require forward and reverse tunneling through the home network > unless it can establish a binding cache entry at the correspondent > node. > > B. This can increase the total capacity requirement for the > communications by an arbitrary amount, depending on the > layout with respect to the home network. That could easily > mean a factor of "thousands". > > Opinion: > > A typical multiplier for (B) will be about 2. The actual > number depends on the relative placement of the nodes, and > the multiplier will be higher whenever a mobile device needs to > communicate with a local correspondent. Suppose the mobile end subscribes to local services using the CoA in stead of the Home Address. The local service doesn't have to know about the home address at all. While having your beer in the pub (for privacy reasons you actually don't even *want* to use the HA route!) you can check the latest results of Swamp Soccer World Championships (http://www.swampsoccer.net/) using the optimal route. Multiplier 1. But of course you'll lose the connection, if you happen to do a handover out of the pub WLAN, so better sit down and order more beer. Or be prepared to click 'reload' at the new address. > Thus, the scenario where people would expect the most > responsive communications will offer counterintuitive > behavior. Now we're getting to percentages of traffic. How many services need to follow you while moving? How many are used while being static for the duration of the service session? Most of us don't browse the web while walking or driving! > Solutions for this problem include: > - restricted mobility > - transient IP addresses > = subcase: EIDs to replace IP addresses as identifiers > - reengineering human intuition > - proxy agents > > These are good for more startups and full employment (like > NATs are), but most of them are bad for the Internet. Thus far the Internet services have all been start-ups. IMHO, they still will be for a long time. They are still looking for the best feel, which leads back to my previous comment. And the kids are learning fast to "reengineer human intuition" to what is available. The text messaging tornado was driven by kids, not business users. As a system architect I respect your arguments, but the wicked service providers seem to have triumphed over them all... <...> > Making it a SHOULD means you cannot fault any vendor for making > devices that continually cause extra work for numerous remote > Internet nodes. Making it a MUST wouldn't change anything. There is no Internet Police that could enforce a MUST. We can't even claim that they will lose business, if they don't comply, because there is no MIPv6 business to lose. Out of the three known tools of statesmanship, Threats and Blackmail are powerless. The only one left is Bribing. Therefore I was asking, if there is a business reason for the fixed, free-for-all, financed-by-ads services to support MIP. What will they win, if they do it? -- Lassi -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
