I also believe that the PMIP capability mechanism is something that should come out of the discussions in NETLMM. Of course, the IPv6 experts need to be consulted.
Jari Suresh Krishnan kirjoitti: > Hi Raj, > > Basavaraj Patil wrote: >> Hi Brian, >> >> One of the tasks that the 6MAN WG is chartered for is : " Shepherd >> completion of standardization of RA Flags Option" >> >> Will this WG also standardize any new flags or options for the RA >> that are >> currently being discussed? >> The question arises from the work on specifying a flag/option in the >> RA for >> indicating Proxy MIP6 (PMIP6) support or capability in the network (I-D: >> draft-damic-netlmm-pmip6-ind-discover-01) > > My gut feel it that it should not be standardized in 6man. The WG that > is interested in the flag (in this case, netlmm) must standardize it. > But the document needs to end up updating 2461 bis (aka 4861). > > Cheers > Suresh > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
