>>>>> On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 19:44:07 +0100 (CET),
>>>>> Erik Nordmark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> + to deal with such issues, we'll need an ability for mobile nodes
>> to tell whether a correspondent node or the home agent is in the
>> same site as the mobile node. However, there is currently no
>> standard way to implement the ability.
> I agree that the issues here needs to be pointed out.
> I wonder if we can give more explicit advice for the case
> when a MN has a global HoA and a site-local CoA .
> For instance, in that case it might make sense to only do bidirectional
> tunneling.
> Does the document look at the different cases here?
(I'm not sure if I understood the question correctly, but anyway...)
My intention in this proposed change is to point out some issues when
using site-local addresses with MIP6 and to recommend to use global
addresses for safety.
We can add some more issues to this section, but I don't think it
possible to cover all such issues. Also, with the fact that MIP6
itself is a moving target, making too specific advises would not make
much sense.
We'll consider the bidirectional tunneling case anyway, but IMO the
text will still follow the intention above (that is, describing some
issues with a simple recommendation).
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
