Francis Dupont wrote: Francis, No problem at all, my inquiry was rather about the urgency of Mobile IPv6 to move into these new constructs, which there apparently is not, no critique of the actual ideas. The idea in the encap-addr-deletion draft is nice and simple, maybe it can bring uniformity to designs in the future.
BR, -Jari > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
