Bill Sommerfeld wrote: > > > have you read the latest MIPv6 spec? > > I have, in fact read the spec. > > > there is an explicit code in the Binding Ack which says "Route > > Optimization unnecessary due to low traffic". the CN just has to > > refuse the binding with this code. > > So, existing nodes will reportedly refuse the binding with an "icmp > parameter problem" message. Why do we need a second encoding for the > same message? Isn't it better to just have one encoding?
are we mixing up route optimization and HAO? the first encoding is for earlier IPv6 implementations. the second encoding is for nodes (which normally support RO), that dont want to do RO currently for some reason. Vijay ps: I trimmed the cc list -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
