On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Hesham Soliman (ERA) wrote: > > This is something that I was getting at. If BU processing is not > > > implemented, then wouldn't all packets be routed via the HA? > > > > Not necessarily, AFAICS (if HAO-option is used). Depends > > on how strict > > your requirement on mobility (in this context, requirement for > > non-breaking connections if IP changes; depends a lot on > > how architecture > > is designed) is. > > > > Do you see any flaws in my reasoning (this wasn't commented > > on) -- I think > > this should answer some questions.. > > => Your understanding is correct, but I disagree with the > conclusion (if the above is a conclusion). It's clear > to me (and many) that there are security hazards associated > with the HAO (thanks to your draft). But rather than redefining > mobility, or relaxing the requirements on mobility, I think > we should work on something that fixes the problem. > So my point is, let's fix the problem instead of redefining > the original goal. Breaking connections was always a no no !
You're right, I that wasn't a conclusion. I only tried to enumerate the dependencies and needs for BU and HAO. A conclusion seems to be that without HAO, you cannot get real mobility, and there would be no use for BU. -- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
