Bound, Jim wrote:
>Tbis discussion should go to mipshop IMO.
>
>Of course I do not have an issue with other docs extending ND options.
>
>But I don't believe this is needed and would like to see clear what >problem is this solving. It does not help with MD but I do not think >this WG is the place to disuss MD issues but mipshop.
>
>/jim
Mipshop has a very restricted charter which doesn't cover these issues.
The DNA BoF is currently looking at these issues, as a generic attempt to tighten up the Network Attachment strategies for wireless hosts.
This is similar to what Mobile IP requires, but has broader applicability. For example, with some systems MobileIP signalling may be unnecessary, but detection of network change is.
The issues are: does it need to be done? If so, where and when?
where is the venue (IPv6, DNA, Mipshop....)
The when is whether it is applicable to 2461bis.
Greg
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
