Hi Itojun,
> we have no way to force upgrade for all users of the existing IPv6 > stacks. therefore, i believe it very important for mobile-ip6 to be > defined so that: > - mobile-ip6 MN is interoperable with CN without HAO support, nor > binding error message support This is already the case. Draft 18 always work even with an IPv6 node that has no MIPv6 support. A CN that doesn't support RR will be sending back ICMP Parameter Problems, which we take in account. (In the current draft also shows a rather special case where HAO could be used without RO if an SA exists, but even in that case we would get an ICMP back and be able to act if the other side didn't support this.) By the way, this ability to support non-MIPv6 nodes is a new feature from a couple of months back, a consequence of protecting against certain security attacks. I really like this feature, and it should make new implementations quite good in the interoperability sense. So, technically everything works. But it's a separate question whether the IETF wants to mandate (SHOULD/MUST) some level of additional support, such as for the HAO or even for the RO. But regardless of whether such mandates are accepted or implemented, the protocol should technically work in all cases. If you can see a case where this would not be the case, please let as know and we'll fix it. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
