> The mobile node is effectively multi-sited in this situation. Here's one > way to implement this. Some (most?) MIPv6 implementations assign the > home address to a virtual interface. Then the virtual interface belongs > to the home site, and the physical interface (which has the care-of > address) belongs to the foreign site.
I take it that the implication here is that all MNs need to be multi-sited and support the site scoping document (or equivalent). In other words, it will need to be widely supported in practice. Is this really the implication? There is a hope/expectation that very many nodes will implement MIPv6. It would be nice of MNs wouldn't be required to implement the scoping document in order to make things work. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
