Pascal Thubert wrote: > * Just as an FYI, I replied to the earlier mail because I am > >>trying to sort this out for the node requirements. I think >>that in MIPv6, it is OK that MIPv6 makes this recommendation (given >>working group consensus, IESG approval, etc.) but the Node Requirements >>document is the final word on the issue (assuming WG consensus, >>IESG approval, etc.). >> > > This issue seems to delay MIPv6 till the node requirement is out; so could we > not just recommend that the Mobile Node SHOULD use the reverse tunnel till some > part of the RR test is complete? If we do so, then a potential CN that fails to > respond to the CoT test would be considered as a legacy device and we would not > perform RO at all. My initial proposal is to negotiate the RO the following > way:
This is what the spec has been saying for some time. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
