> 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.
If a mobile node wants to have a site-local home address in addition to a global home address, then it needs to be multi-sited with all that entails. If it just wants to support global home addresses, then that's not necessary. Let me mention scoped care-of addresses. At least in our implementation, care-of address selection is governed by the normal address selection rules for choosing a source address for the correspondent (destination) address. The home agent's address should be global. So you should choose a global care-of address to register with the home agent. >From Hesham: > => I'm not sure this solves the problem though. It all > depends on where the SL address came from. Is it in the > visited site or the home site? I don't think I understand the problem to which you are referring. I think the best way to conceptualize this is, the MIPv6 virtual interface (which has the home address) is just like a VPN back to the home site. So the multi-site issues are the same as for any multi-sited host. Rich -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
