In your previous mail you wrote:
1. revise the mobility section to clarify issues about using
site-local addresses with mobile IPv6:
=> I disagree with your solution because it takes more than a few line
to describe it (:-).
IMHO site-local addresses in a mobile IPv6 work well if only a
bidirectional tunnel is used between the mobile and its home agent.
Note there should be no penalty because by definition communications
in the same site are local, so the only difference with routing
optimization is the encapsulaion overhead.
Another important point is an equivalent way to describe this solution
is to say the bidirectional tunnel belongs to the home site.
+ thus, we recommend to use global home/care-of addresses *whenever
possible*.
=> I agree because this avoids to have a bi-sited node.
(no further comment about multi-site support in some IPv6 stacks :-).
2. revise the textual representation section
=> I agree if you still allow names (not ambiguous and mapped to
the pair type/id in a local config file).
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
