Hi, From: Francis Dupont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 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.
Are you saying that if we use a bi-directional tunneling, the off-site MN can comunicate with the CN that is in the home-site of the MN? If so, I disagree. Consider the following condition. site A (fec0:0:0:100::/64): a home site of the MN site B (fec0:0:0:100::/64): a foreign site. If the MN moves from the site A to site B, the MN cannot determine the direction to which it should send a packet destinated to fec0:0:0:100:1234:5678:9abc:def0. The destination address can be both on the site A and the site B. --- Keiichi SHIMA IIJ Research Laboratory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> KAME Project <[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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
