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

From: Thomas Eklund <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 16:11:49 +0100

If you stick to that catchy easy discussion without any technical anylysis
then I'm the wrong person to talk to.
I simply dont these cheap slogans wich is based on misunderstandings (or
lack of competence)

/Thomas

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew T. Campbell [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, February 04, 2000 7:18 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Mobile Wireless Internet Forum
>
>
> Thomas:
>
> Seems I got out of bed the wrong side this morning:
>
> >
> > If we stick in the private address lane that some people
> support then we
> > will NEVER see the wireless Internet boom that everyone is
> waiting for -
> > IPv6 is a natural catalyst for making evrything always
> connected - not
> > semi-connected as in these private address/NAT based solutions.
>
> I predict that IPv6 will never (read for the next 20 years if ever)
> be deployed making MIP v6 a dead duck?
>

---

From: "Andrew T. Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 10:46:22 -0800

Thomas:

OK. I deserved that response.

And I agree it is a sound bite for sure, but it is not necessarily
a technical argument here or for that matter a cheap slogan
(BTW, that is cheap) - it is a reality of the market today.

I would like to be wrong but only time will tell...

Andrew

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 07:56:22 -0800

Hello Andrew,

Certain deadlines staring me in the face do not permit a long
response, but I'd like at least to make a short one.

A lot of people seem interested in providing a IPv6 solution for
cellular mobility, judging from the response to my presentation
at the last IETF.  My belief is that IPv6 resides along the best
technical path towards the goal of universal wireless access
(interactive as well as embedded).  I also believe that it will
take the earnest and dedicated efforts of quite a few people to
reach that goal. You can count me in that camp.  Other people
may prefer to work on NAT solutions, or non-IP solutions to the
problem.  Some of these alternates may have more marketing muscle
than IPv6 does at the moment.  But, hey, them's the breaks.
I persist in my belief that technical merit, and the end-to-end
programming model for network applications, do matter.  That
belief has prevented me from making heaps of money in the stock
market, but I am really stubborn in it nonetheless.

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: "Andrew T. Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 11:59:45 -0800

Charles:

Fully agree.

Andrew