RE: [mobile-ip] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-tsirtsis-dsmip-problem-00.tx t

 > > => Sure there are other approaches. However, our limiting factor
 > > is existing deployment. We want to deal with existing problems
 > > on the Internet that can be solved gradually. HIP does not do
 > > that now because a) it does not exist in standards or products,
 > > b) clearly not deployed, c) it has difficult problems that
 > > have not begun to be addressed (e.g. hierarchical name 
 > space ...etc).
 > > At this moment in time it is an idea that was prototyped and
 > > we all know the time it takes from conception to deployment.
 > > Look at v6 which was introduced for a much more tangible problem
 > > than the problems HIP is intended to solve, yet, 10 years later,
 > > deployment is still in its infancy (on a global level). So we need
 > > to realise these issues (in fact they are _the_ issues to
 > > think about) and not only look at the technical challenges.
 > 
 > I believe the intent of surfacing HIP is not to produce a 
 > Proposed Standard
 > but rather to do a set of Experimental drafts that would 
 > serve as a basis
 > for further work, somewhat similar to mipshop and the FMIPv4 
 > work. That work
 > would presumably involve the operational issues you talk 
 > about [1], in
 > addition to technical issues.

=> Ok, good to know. But HIP (whatever it becomes) is not 
useful for us or any deployment right now because this 
is a transition problem from existing MIPv4 deployment. 


 > [1] Note that these issues also apply to MIPv6. I don't know 
 > of anybody
 > today offering commercial MIPv6 service, and when somebody 
 > does, we will
 > probably see the same kind of operational issues arise in 
 > the MIPv6 WG that
 > are currently being dealt with by the MIPv4 WG.

=> I'm sure there will be. The issues I mentioned
above about HIP are not operational, they are fundamental
and non-trivial technical issues. But I don't want to 
discuss it here because it's off topic for this 
draft. 

Hesham

 >