Mattias Pettersson wrote:
>
> "Powell, Ken" wrote:
>
> > I suppose another option would be to add a
> > "request aggregate prefix list" flag bit to
> > the router solicitation message. Such a flag
> > bit would be easier to implement in that
> > it would only impact the part of the stack
> > tha
> > > I suppose another option would be to add a
> > > "request aggregate prefix list" flag bit to
> > > the router solicitation message. Such a flag
> > > bit would be easier to implement in that
> > > it would only impact the part of the stack
> > > that deals with router solicitation/advertisem
> Let me play devil's advocate:
>
> No new types are required! What we're sending is still a Router
> Solicitation/Advertisement. The fact that it is routed gives us more
> information:
Excessive overloading of semantics might not be the best solution.
So let me play the reverse devil's advoca
> >> 1. The TTL of RS is < 255, which tells the HA it is from off-link.
> >
> > Or a spoofed RS. When a router receives a spoofed RS it would presumbly
> > log an event and/or increase a counter.
> > With your overloading proposal it can't tell the difference
> > between a spoofed one and a mobi
]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: New idea for Router Sol/Adv and Mobility - NO new types
> >> 1. The TTL of RS is < 255, which tells the HA it is from off-link.
> >
> > Or a spoofed RS. When a router receives a spoofed RS it would presumbly
> > log an event and/or inc
> Clearly I need a
> picture to understand why the MN would know its HA, but not its home prefix.
While the MN must know at least one home prefix it might not know all of them
in particular it might not know about any new prefixes that have been
introduced while the MN was away from home.
So it
In your previous mail you wrote:
=> this thread was completely messed by the mobile-ip mailing list bug:
I believe a summary is needed in order to understand ideas and
their chain.
On one hand I agree with Erik that new types are better than overloading the
semantics unnecessarily. The ba
Francis Dupont wrote:
> In your previous mail you wrote:
>
> => this thread was completely messed by the mobile-ip mailing list bug:
> I believe a summary is needed in order to understand ideas and
> their chain.
You might be able to find the thread on the IPng group since I crossposted there.
