>> Your suggestion,
>> - Swapping received home address option and care-of (in ip6 header)
>> in ip6 layer and
>> - Present care-of address in IPV6_RECVDSTOPTS
>> is a good candidate (this was one of scenario in my mind), however, we
>> need to document it at least. Otherwise we will get low portability.
>I thought that was documented in the Mobile IPv6 spec (but it's been a
>long time since I read it, so I may just be imagining what is supposed
>to be there.)
I don't think there's mention about swapping home and care-of
addresses. mobile-ipv6-12 page 12 and 32 have some description,
but they uses "substitute" or "replace", which looks to me to
overwrite care-of by home address (or the document does not suggest
the gory dteail).
>> There always are certain applications that needs to peek, or use
>> care-of address. From my limited experience "transparent mobility"
>> is not usually useful, and we need "mobility awareness" in many cases.
>> The best example is IKE traffic used for mobile-ip6 IPsec key.
>Clearly, the apps on the mobile host itself often need to be aware of
>their own mobility. But why should apps on the correspondent node have
>to know anything? And if they do, they should be informed by via their
>application-layer protocols, not by polling the IP layer about each peer
>to see if it happens to be mobile.
hmm, I understood. I may have been confused.
itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
