Eliot Lear wrote: > What could another mobility solution offer / fix that MIP/MIPv6 > didn't?
Ivip's mobility works in the same way for IPv4 and IPv6, has: 1 - Generally optimal or nearly optimal path lengths. 2 - Requires no "home register" router. 3 - Requires no changes in the correspondent host. 4 - Requires minimal changes in the mobile host. Point 3 alone makes it a very different kind of mobility than what has been created with MIP/MIPv6. I guess the developers never contemplated a global ITR ETR system which could be controlled in five seconds or so. I don't think Ivip's kind of mobility is suitable for changes every minute, on a continuing basis, unless the end-user is happy to pay for the burden their updates place on the global fast push network. This may be OK, since people are paying for cellphone calls (at least hear in Australia) at rates of $30 an hour or more. I am not sure what a mapping update would cost, but I am thinking between a cent and ten cents. Scott Brim wrote, in part: > We can, however, look at what mobility capabilities a particular > approach *excludes* and have opinions about that. A pure pull (ALT), or a slow push (NERD) or a slow hybrid push-pull (ALT) is not easily upgradeable to a system which could provide a genuinely new and attractive form of mobility: fast hybrid push-pull (Ivip or similar). - Robin http://www.firstpr.com.au/ip/ivip/ -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
