Nick,
> For example, hmipv6 offers one possible way of eliminating the RTT
> delay caused by sending BUs. In its current form, it probably
> isn't scalable to that level, but sadly I don't have a megapolis
> to test it with -- I'm a research engineer not a product engineer :-)
>
With the latest FMIPv6 draft, HMIP isn't really necessary as a handover
optimization technology, though it can contribute if routers supporting FMIPv6
are not an option. However, it is very useful for providing a primitive form of
location privacy, because it hides movement within a geographical area. The
European Union issues an opinion last spring (Opinion 2/2002: On the use of
unique identifiers in telecommunications equipment: the example of IPv6) which
discusses location privacy. HMIPv6 would be useful in satisfying that
requirement.
W.r.t. scalability, simulation is typically the best way to test scalability
lacking a megapolis. I think it would be extremely useful to have a simulation
of HMIP. There are caveats in using simulation, of course. I don't think
simulation is necessary to go to PS, however, it will certainly be necessary for
recommending HMIP to operators who are interested in deployment.
jak
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
