Francis,
Thanks for the insight. These mobility and namespace things seem to keep coming up over and over in different groups with different names. Might as well call a duck a duck. I was just wondering if they affected the choice at all and if SIPP and MIPv6 were supposed to equal the functionality somehow. The add-on syndrome has proven to not give us ubiquity of any sort which IMO is what you want for a network layer.
Thanks again,
Glenn
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francis Dupont [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 10:57 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] Was Node Mobility a Requirement for IPng?
>
>
> Does anyone know if node mobility was a requirement for
> IPng during the
> debates among the proposals?
>
> => I believe it was but which kind of mobility? At least the current
> Mobile IPv4 situation, i.e. bidirectional tunnel between the
> mobile node
> and its home agent.
>
> If so was SIPP supposed to rely on MIPv6 to fullfill this
> requirement or are
> these really disjunct with MIPv6 being an add on.
>
> => I don't believe for SIPP but PIP has some support for mobility
> (look at the "Pip Near-term Arch" document section 14 "Host Mobility",
> some of us preciously kept some copies of it).
>
> Regards
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
