G'day James, On Thu, Oct 17, 2002 at 08:24:36AM -0700, James Kempf wrote: > > 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.
With all the ... uh ... debate surrounding FMIP drafts, I figured I'd just pick an example I'm more familiar with. Pretty much any mechanism which allows you to keep a stable CoA will work to eliminate the BU RTT delay. I've been thinking about it a bit too, and in many ways the HMIP and three-party-handover mechanisms reduce to the same thing if you think of the MAP as a kind of dummy AR ... > W.r.t. scalability, simulation is typically the best way to test > scalability lacking a megapolis. Yep, we've got some folks here working on an IPv6 simulation suite with OMNeT++, and getting MIP / HMIP / FMIP / etc functionality in there. I'm hoping I can convince them to run me up a million node Optimistic DAD testbed ... -----N -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
