Steve,
> I think that making such a reservation is not *quite* as harmless as
> you imply. If I understand correctly, if we were to agree today to
> reserve a bit in the IPv6 IID (or a subrange of the IID space), the
> Mobile IP folks would then immediately proceed to put some language
> in the Mobile IPv6 spec requiring (or forbidding) certain behavior
> for packets carrying (or not carrying) IIDs from that reserved space.
...
You are right, of course. It is good that you say that
so clearly. To me this has been too implicit, and I couldn't
have expressed it.
Just two observations:
1. Having a switch that suddenly *allows* RR to be
used for the reserved space is much easier than
vise versa. Such a switch can be a MUST in MIPv6.
2. RO (and hence RR) is an optimization. An optimization
that people want, but an optimization anyway. If
two hosts don't do RO, they can still communicate.
--Pekka Nikander
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
