In your previous mail you wrote: > >it is. if a CN does not support HAO, it will send an ICMP error message > >pointing to the offending octet. when the MN receives this message, it > >starts reverse-tunneling through the Home Agent. where is the problem? > >if this is not clearly specified in the MIPv6 draft, it can be. the > >binding error functionality can also be substituted by an ICMP error. > >Binding Error was specified so that it is easier for the MN to figure > >out whats going on. > > then I see no reason for the MUST. I was discounting the reason (the already IPv6 installed base) you gave. the MUST is for newer IPv6 CN implementations. as I told you already, it makes the MN's life easier. but the current spec does ensure that a MN can still have a session with an old IPv6 implementation (which does not implement HAO) through reverse tunneling. so again, where is the problem? why are you against the MUST? => MUSTs are for interoperability problems, not for political matters. So Itojun is right and the fact that old IPv6 nodes still work with MNs proves the requirement should not be higher than SHOULD.
Regards [EMAIL PROTECTED] PS: sorry but if someone is asking whether the RR/RO support should be mandatory I'll vote against it. And I can't see how the iETF will enforce it if I am being in the minority... (the topics has just been added to the ipv6 WG session agenda) -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
