Subject: Re: MIPv6 hopeless

From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 14:22:59 -0400

> From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>

    > I explained three reasons on why MIPv6 is hopeless.
    > .. its handover is too slow to be useful for any realistic application
    > ..
    > The second one is multi6 specific, while the first and the third ones
    > are generic.

I'm interested in your claim that the "handover is too slow to be useful" is
generic; i.e. would apply to any mechanism.

Are you saying that any attempt to switch from use of one address to use of
another, while a connection is open, is bound to be too slow to be useful?

That would be of interest, if true, since people want that as a goal. Are

	Noel

---

From: Masataka Ohta <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 06:34:03 +0859 ()

Noe;

> generic; i.e. would apply to any mechanism.

No, I wrote "its handover is too slow to be useful" that it
is MIPv6 specific.

I said "generic", because it is a problem of MIPv6 not specifically
related to multi6.

> another, while a connection is open, is bound to be too slow to be useful?

No.

However, it should also be noted that, as I presented at Vienna,
handover timeout of any mobile protocl is not useful for multihoming,
because the timing must be determined based on the mobile cell size
divided by movement speed, which has nothing to do with the
requirement of applications.

						Masataka Ohta