>>> On 21 Feb 2015, at 16:06 , Juliusz Chroboczek >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>> The client is running a stub implementation of the routing protocol. >>> >>>> I thought we already had decided we didn't require changes to the host? >>> >>> We don't *require* changes to the host. We propose optional host >>> modifications that improve the user experience. >> >> exactly. >> you aren't going to have much fun with multi-prefix multi-homing without >> host changes anyhow. > > Let me get this straight: So the proposal is that end systems will have to > change their IPv6 address when it moves between wifi APs if it's a current > end system, and in order to keep its address, it needs to start to speak HNCP?
are you replying to the point I made? cause fully functioning MHMP requires host support (read MP-TCP/session layer) regardless of moving or not. with regards to a proposal I haven't seen one written up, but I don't think what your are stating is it. ;-) cheers, Ole
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
