Hi, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petre...@gmail.com> writes:
> I tend to think MIPv6 RO is not deployed in CNs, at least not as wide as > expected. > > With respect to Raj's earlier suggestion, I wouldn't agree substituting > RFC5555 for RFC3775, i.e. to use DSMIPv6 instead of Mobile IPv6 - > because Mobile IPv6 and Mobile IPv4 have been used successfully for this > goal, with practical implementations, simultaneously; whereas I'm not > aware of DSMIPv6 implementations(?). I am also against switching from RFC 3775 to RFC 5555. I think *far more* feedback on DSMIPv6 is needed, i.e. implementation and deployment. > I would also recommend to suggest the use of NEMOv6 protocol extensions > to Mobile IPv6, whenever talking Mobile Nodes. I.e. say "Mobile Nodes > (Mobile Hosts and Mobile Routers RFC3963)". It would have been easier > if RFC3775 referred to RFC3963 but it's not the case, and 3775bis not too. > > RFC3963 NEMOv6 implementations are probably as widespread as Mobile IPv6 > implementations. Additionally, radvd (which is widely used on linux) > does mention RFC3963 and does implement the HA NEMOv6 features necessary > in RA. > > I think the qualification of use of NEMOv6 RFC3963 could be as strong as > RFC3775 (MAY?). +1. If one ask someone the reference documents about MIPv6, the answer will probably be RFC 3775, RFC 3963 and RFC 4877. From a development standpoint, extending an existing MIPv6 implementation to support NEMO is easy. IMHO, it is a good idea to have NEMO at the same level as MIPv6. > For example, for this current Node Requirements text: >> Routers SHOULD support the generic mobility-related requirements for >> all IPv6 routers described in Section 8.3 of [RFC-3775]. Routers >> MAY >> support the home agent functionality described in Section 8.4 of >> [RFC-3775], including support of [RFC-2473] and [RFC-3776]. > > I'd suggest something like: "Routers (Mobile Routers or Home Agents) > MAY support Mobile Router and Home Agents respective implementations, as > described in RFC3775 and RFC3963." Or similar. > > A Mobile Router is different from a Router, for example, because of a > relatively strong recommendation, in that it must not join > (capitalized) the all-routers link-local multicast address when not at > home. > > Finally, RFC3776 has been updated by another RFC, which could be > mentioned. Whose implementation status I don't know. RFC 4877. Cheers, a+ -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
