Samita Chakrabarti wrote:
> As for existing IPv6 nodes that do not support MIPv6 at all > and does not recognize "mobility Header", the draft should > specify that they should respond with a ICMP PARAM problem. RFC 2463 takes care of this. Draft-17 of MIPv6 specifies how to deal with the reception of the resulting ICMP parameter problem in section 11.5.2. > Irrespective of RO being MUST/SHOULD, non-MIPv6 compliant IPv6 > nodes should send ICMP error when it receives a binding > update with MIPv6 protocol headers. > > If the mobile node sees an error from CN for processing BU, then > it will continue communication through reverse tunnel path. > > So, I don't see much issues with incompatibility with existing > IPv6 nodes-except they need to upgrade to mipv6-compliant IPv6 > node sometime. I agree. Jari -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
