>>>>> On Tue, 19 Mar 2002 23:21:27 +0100,
>>>>> Francis Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 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.
Okay, we'll need some consideration about bidirectional tunneling.
> 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).
We'll still allow (implementation-dependent) names, just like before.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
