[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> RO gives you the capability of having two end-points connected without > having to rely on intermediate nodes such as the HA being > involved. The HA is not the bottleneck. One of the benefits of RO is > lesser traffic in the backbone and to a certain degree reduced > latency. But these are some of the lesser motivations. Well, I think latency is still a very good motivation. Even if we upgraded the backbone, someone forgot to upgrade speed of light ;-) > Having a mobile anchored at some point in the network (HA) when it is > non-essential is just not the right approach. I agree. > Mandating HAO processing > in all IPv6 nodes is the only way to accomplish this and reverse > tunnelling or having a node anchored at the HA is an option only for > backward compatibility to the nodes that already deployed (which is a > pretty small percentage of IP nodes). Please remember that the HAO processing is not sufficient by itself. This whole debate is not really about RO and HAO processing -- currently the spec is NOT mandating that with any keyword, we are expecting the node requirements document to do that. However, we are mandating the combination of IPsec, triangular routing, and HAO processing. So, when you are saying "mandating HAO processing", do you IPsec+triangular+HAO combination? I would actually say that RR, RO, and HAO are really the main ingredients for a successful mobility solution. The other combination is really just a special case and I can't see it being used in the Internet for any sizeable fraction of traffic. In fact, in my code I would always do RO even if I had an IPsec SA, so the combination might not even be usable by everyone. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
