> Come on. You can't implement or understand MIPv6 if you don't have ND down. > It is not even possible. > The engineers in MIPv6 are clearly qualified to work to enhance ND.
I think I can implement MIPv6 just fine without section 7.5, 7.6, and 7.7 in the MIPv6 draft. After all, I'll have 149-3 pages to implement. Having those sections separate makes it easier to add more ND optimizations for Mobile IPv6 as we learn more. I don't want people that work out e.g. an optimistic DAD scheme to have to stick that into the MIPv6 document just because the MIPv6 document talks about DAD. > I don't believe moving it to separate spec will make it more implementable > at all. MIPv6 is no longer a MUST. I don't understand your point. This issue is not about implementing the 146 pages in routers; the issue is to get routers to implement the 3 pages of ND changes that improve the performance of movement detection. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
