hi Keiichi, sorry about the earlier mail. I realised it was rude and not called for.
I will try to rephrase what I said. the CN implementation as it is described in draft-17 is quite simple (IMO). a lot of care was taken to make the CN as stateless as possible (at the cost of extra work by the MN). regards Vijay Vijay Devarapalli wrote: > > Keiichi SHIMA / 島慶一 wrote: > > > >From an implementor's point of view, manating RO will pose noticeable > > extra work to all IPv6 implementors. It is not so easy to implement > > RO (which means implementing the RR procedure and BCE management). > > from another implementor's point of view, this is nonsense. a lot > of emphasis has been placed on the current MIPv6 internet draft to > minimise the work the CN has to do. I can get you some code, if you > think it is so difficult to implement. > > Vijay > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
