Pekka Nikander wrote: ... > That is, if we assume that > there are two types of mobile nodes, "weak" ones and "strong" > ones, but only one type of corresponding nodes, ones that > are able to act either as "weak" or "strong", the bit method > does indeed seem to create some footing.
This I still don't understand. A header option can assert "weak" or "strong" (or better, "algorithm ID") just as well as magic bits in an address, without overloading the address and stealing bits already allocated in EUI-64. A header option can also be cryptographically authenticated. I fully understand why we need bidding-down protection and the newly suggested step down procedure. I just can't see a case for putting the required semantics in the address. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
