In your previous mail you wrote: If these expressed concerns can be addressed by using existing extension headers, why not use them? => just because it is better to deal with expressed concerns in a general context than in a special-purpose one. I can see only advantages to this so what are the problems with a discussion about tunnel address compression or multiple payloads in the IPv6 WG? IMHO mobile IPv6 has enough suffered from a ghetto syndrome...
Regards [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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
