-----Original Message----- From: mext-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:mext-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Behcet Sarikaya
Hi Raj, I agree that basic MIP6 should not have RO feature, just like PMIPv6. I think in basic MIP6 we should define an IP entity close to MN, like AR. [Ahmad] Hi Behcet, May be we can reuse MIP4 signaling and save ourselves a lot of efforts and time:-) Regards, Ahmad Again like PMIPv6. Regards, Behcet ----- Original Message ---- > From: "basavaraj.pa...@nokia.com" <basavaraj.pa...@nokia.com> > To: wassim.had...@ericsson.com; m...@ietf.org > Cc: int-area@ietf.org; rdr...@cisco.com > Sent: Wed, March 3, 2010 6:24:23 PM > Subject: Re: [Int-area] [MEXT] Rethink on Mobile IPv6 > > Wassim, On 3/3/10 2:30 PM, "ext Wassim Haddad" <> ymailto="mailto:wassim.had...@ericsson.com"; > href="mailto:wassim.had...@ericsson.com";>wassim.had...@ericsson.com> > wrote: > => Does this mean that you want also to take out the > RO mode or you want to > simplify it? The basic Mobile IPv6 > protocol as I mentioned is about establishing a tunnel between the MN and HA > and updating the binding when the tunnel end-point on the MN changes. > Period. If we start including everyones favorite features, then we end up > with the same status quo. Enhanced features like RO etc. can be > specified separately. But basic MIP6 implementations and operations should > not require it. -Raj > > > Wassim > H. _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing > list > href="mailto:Int-area@ietf.org";>Int-area@ietf.org > href="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area";; target=_blank > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area _______________________________________________ MEXT mailing list m...@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
