From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Mandating Route Optimization Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 19:54:03 +0900
> >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. How should we apply the IETF motto, e.g. "rough consensus and running code", (especially latter words) in this case? ^^^^^^^^^^^^ If mip6 people shows experience and validity about route optimization based upon running code, we will be able to have more productive discussion. thanks, ---- nobuo -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
