Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Mobile Wireless Internet Forum

From: "Casati, Alessio (Alessio)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 10:39:44 -0000

> i agree, wireless is a natural for v6 cuz most of the time deployment
> is already planning on having some sort of proxy or intermediate system
> between the wireless cloud and the general internet. i'm not talking about
> laptops that happen to connect wirelessly, i'm talking about the much
> more numerous phone-like devices. imposing a proxy may
> have other architectural consequences, but it does provide a natural
> location for the v6/v4 interface function. certainly worth exploring.
>
>
Well, if we use proxy, then why not using private addresses.
If so we don't need IPv6. Thinking Loudly.

alessio

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 11:32:34 -0500

>If so we don't need IPv6. Thinking Loudly.

I am not a fan of private addresses in IPv4 or IPv6 (site or org local
addresses) but it appears some like them (not all customers either and
most I know want GLOBALLY ROUTABLE ADDRESSES and feel its one of their
unalienable rights on the Internet :---).  But if one must then using
IPv6 site local addresses (FEC0::,,,,,,,,) will work for the private
address mind-set and still permit the advantages the user gets with Ipv6
Mobility over IPv4 Mobility.  So private addresses are not a valid
argument against using IPv6 for 3GPP.

regards,
/jim