Thanks. What I mean is that IP-layer mobility is or has been a MAJOR motivation for IPv6. But I don't see a CLEAR statement that IETF mobility solution is IP-layer mobility. I see the same mobility solutions replicated by SIP (including fast handover), for example.
This means that either the IETF is doing "research" (!!!), or it is standardizing faster than research, both of which are seriously harmful to the community. Really! Given that IP mobility is a MAJOR motivation for IPv6 (to the point that you cannot achieve it without IPv6), one would expect that IETF is supporting this solution and not another one. This is not the my impression. Compared to that, dividing the efforts into IPv4 and IPv6 is a minor concern IMHO. Regards, pars On Dec 12, 2007 6:35 PM, Joe Touch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Pars Mutaf wrote: > > With all due respect, I'm questioning this result ;-) > > The client/server paradigm which, at least to me, does not really > > require IPv6. > > The charts are intended to show the uptake of IPv6 commercially. Web > servers seem a reasonable way to measure that, at least initially. > > > In my opinion the real dooms day metric is "how far we are from > > the IP addressable cell phone", which is probably not measurable :-/ > > Nor would an ATM addressable cellphone be, unless they talk to something > else using IPv6. Using IPv6 internally is irrelevant. > > I would be surprised if IPv6 made it into cellphones and major companies > failed to upgrade their web servers to be surf-able from those phones. > > Joe > > > > On Dec 12, 2007 5:24 PM, Joe Touch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Here's a good overall datapoint: > >> http://utility.nokia.net/~lars/meter/ipv6.html > >> > >> Lars and I talked originally about a 'doomsday clock'-like metric, that > >> shows IPv6 uptake via tracking Fortune-500 and similar commercial sites. > >> This is the current result... not very encouraging, IMO. > >> > >> Joe > >> > >> > >> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > >>> On 12 dec 2007, at 16:46, Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > >>> > >>>> I wanted to say that while I'm happy to see more and more IPv6 > >>>> addresses allocated and - right this evening - my home being invaded > >>>> by 2^64 addresses by my provider, I also think many if not all new > >>>> paradigm applications aren't IPv6 but IPv4: facebook, itunes, gps, > >>>> skype, fon, second life, you name it. > >>> Small datapoint: iTunes supports IPv6 on both Mac and Windows and has > >>> for a number of years. I don't believe any Apple hosted stuff, such as > >>> the iTunes Store, is available over IPv6, though. > >>> > >>> Iljitsch > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Int-area mailing list > >>> [email protected] > >>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Int-area mailing list > >> [email protected] > >> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
