When the next version of the draft is issued, incorporating all the agreed resolutions of WG last call comments, we'll post a note to the ipng mailing list summarizing the requirements that the MIP WG is recommending.
Phil > -----Original Message----- > From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 12:50 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: summary of HAO, BE processing discussion > > > > I'm trying to summarize the discussion on the HAO and BE > processing. > > Here's a few things that came up in the discussion: > > * MUSTs should be used only if interoperability is > at danger, or if the health of the internet is > in question even if protocols would operate > correctly. > > * There will be existing IPv6 nodes that do not > yet have MIPv6 support, and not all of them can > be changed overnight when a new IPv6 RFC comes out. > > * The current MIPv6 protocol works technically even > with non-MIPv6 nodes. The MNs will not normally > attempt to use HAO without establishing a binding. > If the CN does not support MIPv6 RR, it sends back > an ICMPv6 parameter problem. And even if the MN > went ahead and used HAO (as in with IPsec, for instance), > the CN would also respond with a parameter problem. > > This is in the current draft*. > > * There are two potential node requirements from the > MIPv6 functionality: > - Route optimization, the main benefit (section 8.2) > - Basic HAO supported, a subset of the above and > used for HAO under IPsec with triangular routing > (8.1). Includes also BEs. > > * The current draft does not state what the keyword > is for the RO functionality (so far left for the node > requirements team to decide, yet we intend to recommend > something). The draft does say MUST for basic > HAO support, however. > > * The IETF is free to decide what kind of requirement to > place on nodes for these functions, since there are > no interoperability concerns. > > * IPv6 WG has in the past accepted the HAO as a mandatory > feature for all IPv6 nodes. Arguments have been made, > however, that the processing of the HAO has been changed > and the situation may now be different. > > * Arguments have been raised that the basic HAO support does > not fullfil conditions to be a MUST. > > * Earlier discussions have looked upon what is the right > level of support for RO. Proposals ranging from MAY to > MUST were then mentioned, and arguments about congestion-like > effects of non-optimal routing were used among others. > > Jari > > * A last call comment requested more text for the HAO-without-RO case. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
