Hi all, I'm sorry to raise this topic so many times, I still don't understand the reason.
The current mip6 (draft-18) says that all IPv6 nodes: - MUST be able to validate a HAO - MUST be able to send a Binding Error message I think I understand the benefit of the above requirements. If an IPv6 node supports the above requirements, a mobile node can communicate with the IPv6 node using a triangular routing if HAO is protected by the IPsec. But, even if there is no such requirement, a mobile node can communicate with all IPv6 nodes in the world using bi-directional tunneling. This requires nothing to all existing and future IPv6 nodes. I may misread/misunderstand something. If so, please correct me. I'm not sure it is important or not to mandate HAO/BE to make a triangular routing possible. But it seems to me that such requirements make it harder to make mip6 become an rfc. I still don't think such new requirements are accepted by the IPv6 WG. Again, I'm sorry I should have sent this comment earlier. I really want to make the mip6 spec RFC as soon as possible. I think fewer requirements is better for fast deploying. --- Keiichi SHIMA IIJ Research Laboratory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> KAME Project <[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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
