I'm sorry, I must describe more to complete the scenario. From: Keiichi SHIMA / 島慶一 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > => Technically, removing the must on the HAO is not a problem. > > In fact, regardless of deployed base, keeping a must for > > the HAO makes no sense IMHO. > > As for the BE message, I guess we need to make sure that > > somehow the CN tells the MN that no binding exists. > > Not sure what can be done about this. > > If the CN supports mip6, the CN will send a BE message when it > receives a packet which has HAO and it doesn't have a BCE. If the CN > doesn't support mip6, the CN will send an ICMP PRAMPROB with code 2 > based on the ICMPv6 specification. Also, if the CN doesn't support mip6 and receives MH (ex. HoTI/CoTI), the CN will send ICMP PARAMPROB with code 1 based on the ICMPv6 specification. > When the MN receives a BE message, the MN will re-start RR procedure. > When the MN receives ICMP PARAMPROB with code 2 and the pointer > indicates HAO, the MN will switch to use bi-directional tunneling. When the MN receives ICMP PARAMPROB with code 1 and the pointer indicates MH, the MN will switch to use bi-directional tunneling. > Is there any other scenarios? Please correct me if the above rules > are not enough to support non-mip6-aware IPv6 nodes. Best Regards, --- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
