A few issues have become mingled here. 1) Keiichi and others have raised the issue of MUST support for HAO and BE processing and have proposed a solution that allows communication to happen between any two nodes with clarification in the MIP spec of properly handling the ICMP errors returned.
2) There is a question about RO support requirements for all nodes. Actually the current spec doesn't give a recommendation for support of RO. If a node is supporting it, there are a bunch of MUSTs. We should make sure we agree as a working group on our consensus on these two issues. Perhaps we can sort this out on the MIP list first? > -----Original Message----- > From: Francis Dupont [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, July 17, 2002 8:57 PM > To: Vijay Devarapalli > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] Re: HAO and BE processing will be mandated > > > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
