Jari Arkko writes:
> Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> > On the requirement for HAO in all IPv6 nodes... is
> > this actually necessary? That is, if I do not
> > implement a binding cache (which is not a
> > requirment), the only processing the node would
> > need to do is inform the mobile node that it can
> > not/will not process the HAO because it's not
> > legal to interpret it as a home address without a
> > binding entry. Likewise, a MN shouldn't be sending
> > a HAO until it establishes a binding, thus there
> > shouldn't be a possibility for missynchronization
> > there either.
>
> Right. And that's what we are recommending. We
> are saying that the current HAO requirement for all
> nodes should be removed.
>
> CN has no clue about HAO, MN sends anyway => ICMP Par.prob. code 2
> MN tries to establish RO, no CN support => ICMP Par.prob. code 1
Good. Then I'm cool with the recommendation.
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
