On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Hesham Soliman (ERA) wrote: > > > => 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, > > => OK, and just to be a bit pedantic :), I would say that > without some form of tunnelling (e.g. the HAO) we can not > get true mobility.
True. -- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
