"Hesham Soliman (EAB)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > Updating the node requirements and I came to this RFC. > > > > This RFC raised a lot > > > > of discussion during the Cellular Hosts draft - I wonder > > > > what the consensus > > > > is for the Node requirements. This could be useful for > > > > end-user hosts, > > > > > => for _stationary_ end hosts. > > > > Not sure why you say that. RFC 3041 specifically says: > >
> => I took out the RFC text to make the mail shorter. > When I made that comment I meant to distinguish IPv6 > nodes from MNs based on whether they implement MIPv6 > MN functions or not. So when I said "stationary" I meant > IPv6 nodes that do not implement MN functions as described > in MIPv6. OK, though choosing to call such nodes "stationary" isn't very intuitive. My "stationary" laptop goes with me to lots of places, yet would be a good example of where temporary addresses might well be appropriate. > For those MNs, we do not yet have a mechanisms > to allow for RFC3041 type home addresses. So there would be > no point in having them for the CoA since the HoA is always > visible for traffic analysis. Specifically, I assume you mean that there is no way for an MN to use temporary addresses because there is no way for the MN to tell the HA what other addresses it is using? Also, how much of a problem is this perceived to be? Thomas -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
