Nick per hmip I rest my case :---) below. I don't have and opinion not my discipline but I would like to see James, Hesham, you, et al agree :----) How about for the greater good :--)
/jim -----Original Message----- From: James Kempf [mailto:kempf@;docomolabs-usa.com] Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 10:25 AM To: Nick 'Sharkey' Moore; Bound, Jim Cc: Alper E. YEGIN; Pekka Savola; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Optimistic DAD draft ... 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
