Subject: RE: Mandating Route Optimization

From: Samita Chakrabarti <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 17:58:54 -0700 (PDT)

> X-Authentication-Warning: sunroof.eng.sun.com: majordomo set sender to 
[email-masked] using -f
> From: [email-masked]
> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3
> content-class: urn:content-classes:message
 
> > 	please be aware of already-deployed IPv6 codebase. WinXP is shipping,
> > 	MacOS X will be shipping soon, and mobile-ip6 is not yet an RFC.
> > 	even home address option (which is a MUST) is changing.
> > 	i don't think it a good situation for implementers.
> 
> I think that this will not be a significant problem - I assume that
> there will be more IPv6 implementations coming than what what
> exists already.  Of course, the existing implementations may not
> support Mobile IP and I think that will be something that we have
> to live with.

 I agree with John completely. We don't have enough IPv6 deployment
 yet and it's good time to make the decision whether Route Optimization
 should be MUST in MobileIPv6. I think, it makes more sense to have
 Route Optimization a 'MUST' in MobileIPv6 draft now than in future,
 when we  might have significant backward compatibility problems.

 -Samita

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 08:47:41 -0700 (PDT)

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but
regardless of whether implementation of RO for
CN's is a MUST/SHOULD, there should be text in the
draft that "RO MUST have a means to be
administratively disabled on the CN."

I hope it's obvious why.

		 Mike