OKABE Nobuo wrote: > > > > As the always-on network is becoming popular, lots of nodes, not > > > only ordinary PCs but also various information appliances such as > > > sensors, home appliances, AV equipments, are to be connected to the > > > Internet. > > Note: there isn't much discussion on certain MIPv6-mandated subjects, like > > Home Address Option processing. One will have to clarify this; however > > MIPv6 is under much discussion as right now so the situation could change. > > A kind of munimum host should not have mobility. > It means the host does not have to implement MIP6 related functions. > This is the reason why this draft does not mandate MIP6.
The problem is that if a mobile node try to connect the peer with the home address destination option and the peer doesn't support the home address destination option, these two can't communication forever. This is because (at least current) MIP6 requires all the IPv6 nodes to process the home address destination option (means to be mobility aware) even though they are not mobile. But, as Pekka have said already, MIP6 need much discussion and such requirement may change... P.S. KAME/MIP6 fallbacks to using CoA if the destination peer send ICMP paramprob against the home address destination option. Of course this breaks mobility but very useful in transision period or may be for such a minimum host okabe-san said. --- Keiichi SHIMA IIJ Research Laboratory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> KAME Project <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
