> In terms of packet format, and registration with the HA, I see no reason > for SL to create any confusion. It is just one of the addresses that > could map to the current care-of address. The point the might be > confusing is the ability of the mobile node to detect that it is no > longer in the site. This should not be particularly difficult in the > case where the RA no longer contains a SL or global prefix for the HA, > because this is a good indication that the node is 'no longer in > Kansas'.
What prefix length are you advocating to use when comparing? There is no reliably way a MN can know what global prefixes (with lengths) are used in its site. But even if you solve that, you need think think about Route Optimization issues when the CN, HA, and MN can be in any set of sites. > The problem case is where the RA contains only SL. Is this the > home site where the global prefix went away or not? Since there is no > global prefix for the care-of, it would be hard to establish a mip-v6 > ha/coa mapping. This does not mean SL fails in the case of the mobile > node, only that nodes that move between SL-enabled networks might need > to look for other hints to decide when they are no longer 'home'. That is a problem I hadn't thought about. Seems like we are finding new problems in this space ... Erik -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
