Hello John,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I do think that additional work > will be needed to detail how RO is used, if there > is a need for protocol negotiation, etc. I think > that the important thing is to have a strong > statement of support for implementing RO. How > RO is used probably needs some real deployment > experience, etc. I think that RO needs to be > implemented, but its use is probably still open > to local control, etc. If there is any issue here, it is mainly a matter of allowing mobile nodes to hide their location. That's simple -- the node should simply do reverse tunneling, and not issue HoTI and CoTI. I can't imagine a reason why a correspondent node would prefer to have traffic going through the home network rather than directly to its mobile communications partner, but if there is a reason, then certainly the correspondent node can simply avoid sending HoT and CoT. Even with HoTI, CoTI, HoT, CoT, and BU mandated for implementation, the mobile nodes still have to correctly and courteously handle the cases where HoT and CoT and even Binding Error messages are never received. I hope these matters will be viewed as specified clearly. Anywhere they are not, we should fix. Regards, Charlie P. -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
