>>>>> On Mon, 03 Jun 2002 12:49:35 -0700,
>>>>> "Charles E. Perkins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> What do you think about the points I tried to make a few days ago
>>> about general scalability and the likely proportion of future nodes
>>> that will be mobile nodes.
>>
>> I respect your insight, but my honest feeling is that it was a guess.
> It's not a guess that reverse tunneling lengthens the response time
> for packets sent from a mobile node. That's just arithmetic.
Perhaps I was not very correct about the wording. It's true that
reverse tunneling lengthens the response time. But it's not sure
about how long the response time takes. It's not sure how it is
serious for typical applications using mobile-ip. It's not sure about
how many correspondent nodes will actually lengthen the response time
in practical operations if we make the requirement a SHOULD...
> In my previous note, I clearly labeled the facts and opinions.
> Did you dispute the points I listed as facts? Did you dispute
> the points I labeled as opinions?
I did not necessarily to dispute your facts and opinions. They may be
true or false. I could just not be sure. I admit this argument is
not fair in general, because I did not provide concrete (negative)
evidence either. However, in this case those who are trying to
mandate something are responsible for giving concrete evidence.
>> We're (or I am) not sure about the real
>> rate of nomadic nodes *speaking mobile-ip* in the future Internet.
>> IMO, requiring a MUST (for all nodes) due to a performance issue needs
>> a concrete evidence like results of performance tests, not a guess.
> I'd be very interested to hear how you can resolve the following
> problem:
> - If we do NOT mandate the required feature, and a lot of millions
> of mobile nodes implement Mobile IPv6, then there will be a lot
> of millions of IPv6 nodes built between now and then that will not
> work well.
if a lot of millions of mobile nodes implement Mobile IPv6 and a lot
of millions of correspondent nodes do not implement the optimization
(due to a SHOULD) and not implementing the optimization is really
critical, then it can be a problem. I'm just saying we're not (yet)
sure about all the conditions at this stage.
> - If we DO mandate the required feature, and Mobile IPv6 is a flop,
> then there will be a lot (but probably somewhat fewer than above)
> nodes that "unnecessarily" implement the feature(s).
And the cost of the devices will unnecessarily be raised, the ship
timing will unnecessarily be delayed. Not mandating the feature (at
this moment) can solve the situation.
> - If we mandate the feature LATER, then in the meantime and for
> a year afterwards, many of the devices manufactured to be compliant
> with IPv6 specifications (that is, _many more_ than we have now)
> will suddenly become noncompliant.
Yes, but as some other guys pointed out, we cannot always avoid the
situation that makes some older implementations non-compliant.
Additionally, if we decide mandating the feature LATER, then we'll
have found very convincing evidence (with some concrete results)
before that point. During the procedure, some implementors may find
the merit of supporting the optimization and implement it. So, not
all implementations that choose skipping the optimization now will
"suddenly" be non-compliant.
According to your expected deployment schedule:
>>>>> On Sun, 02 Jun 2002 23:25:06 -0700,
>>>>> Charlie Perkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Even if it's mandated, I doubt we would see interoperability tests before
> next year, and then implementation in products not before end of 2003.
I don't get why we cannot live with the gradually deployment.
Please let me rephrase my opinion again:
>>>>> On Tue, 04 Jun 2002 03:24:49 +0900,
>>>>> JINMEI Tatuya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Going back to the route optimization issue, I don't just get why we
> cannot go with a SHOULD. Some implementors have already said that
> they will implement the feature (even with a SHOULD). So, we'll at
> least have an environment to test the effectiveness, interoperability,
> performance (and whatever necessary) of the optimization to make a
> further decision.
(snip)
> then I think we can wait for results of the experiments, rather than
> to make a strong requirement for all nodes at this stage.
Regarding the "minimum requirements" discussion:
> I thought the discussion about "minimum requirements" was pretty
> good! In fact, it's just the kind of discussion that was needed,
> as shown by recent conclusions about NUD. I also think that similar
> analysis is needed by vendors before they decide whether or not to
> implement the route optimization features.
I agree, but I don't think we have enough evidence for vendors to
decide whether or not to implement the route optimization. Thus, I'd
like to let the vendors to make the decision after we collect enough
(concrete) information, rather than to mandate the feature at this
moment.
===
I believe I've fully dumped my opinions and understood yours. Those
two are so opposite, and I'm not sure if we can reach a consensus by
further discussions. So I'd like to hear other implementors for now.
After all, if all (or overwhelmingly majority of) related vendors are
convinced to mandate the route optimization (I doubt that though), the
discussion will just be over. (Of course, please feel free to make
comments to this message.)
Regards,
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
