Subject: RE: When should mobile nodes use their care-of address, etc...

From: Richard Draves <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 14:24:25 -0700

> Your proposal is simply too inflexible and I don't understand why
> we can get a policy per user, environment, ... and not a flag.

Actually, the draft says:

   IPv6 implementations SHOULD support configurable address selection 
   via a mechanism at least as powerful as the policy tables defined 
   here. If an implementation is not configurable or has not been 
   configured, then it SHOULD operate according to the algorithms 
   specified here in conjunction with the following default policy 
   table: 

So if you believe the policy table mechanisms in the draft are too
inflexible for mobility, then you are free to invent & implement more
powerful mechanisms.

Rich
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2000 18:23:48 +0200

=> Will the draft go in the standard track or be published as informational?
In the first case you should not use this kind of answers, in the second
case at least two documents for the standard track (6to4 and privacy IID)
depend on your draft...

[email-masked]