>But we can not, now or ever, allow considerations of existing implementations
>conformance state affect the decisions about what new implementations
>should be required to implement.
then we will have two separate set of IPv6 nodes - without mobile-ipv6
and with mobile-ipv6, and they cannot even ping each other.
do you feel it acceptable?
i'm very unhappy about the delay of mobile-ipv6 spec. it should have
defined home address option, set it in stone, and then work on other
things. implementers cannot support (human resource-wise) drafts
that drastically change content every time the new version appears.
even if that technology is a good one, this way that won't deploy.
itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
