>I'm sorry to raise this topic so many times, I still don't understand
>the reason.
>
>The current mip6 (draft-18) says that all IPv6 nodes:
>
>- MUST be able to validate a HAO
>- MUST be able to send a Binding Error message
>
>I think I understand the benefit of the above requirements. If an
>IPv6 node supports the above requirements, a mobile node can
>communicate with the IPv6 node using a triangular routing if HAO is
>protected by the IPsec.
>
>But, even if there is no such requirement, a mobile node can
>communicate with all IPv6 nodes in the world using bi-directional
>tunneling. This requires nothing to all existing and future IPv6
>nodes.
as you may have heard during IETF54 IESG plenary panel session,
i would like to see the above "MUST" removed. there are large amount
of IPv6 install base, which supports no HAO, or old definition of HAO.
for instance, FreeBSD beyond 4.0 has IPv6 but no support for HAO.
MacOS 10.2, JunOS and ExtremeWare do not have HAO support either.
suspect they have no HAO support.
we have no way to force upgrade for all users of the existing IPv6
stacks. therefore, i believe it very important for mobile-ip6 to be
defined so that:
- mobile-ip6 MN is interoperable with CN without HAO support, nor
binding error message support
- do not require any changes to existing implementations
- do not make them "non-conformant"
i would really like to see the change included in draft 19. thanks.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
