Re: [Mipshop] RFC4140bis

hi Hesham,

there is one issue I would like to raise.

on the NETLMM mailing list, I was arguing for not tying
HMIPv6 or FMIPv6 with the use of Mobile IPv6. FMIPv6
already does that. it can be used independent of MIPv6.
for example, it can provide fast handoffs for a
MOBIKE enabled IPsec tunnel.

HMIPv6 OTOH has text thats says after sending a BU to
the MAP, there MUST be a BU sent to the HA. basically
it assumes MIPv6 is being used at the same time. I
think it would be a good idea to clean up the text so
that HMIPv6 can be used independent of any "global"
mobility management protocol.

Vijay

Soliman, Hesham wrote:
> Folks, 
> 
> I submitted an RFC 4140bis to start the work towards a PS RFC for
> HMIPv6.
> The draft can be found at:
> 
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-soliman-mipshop-4140bis-00.txt
> 
> There are no changes from the RFC but I do have a list of TODOs that I
> hope to get a slot for in Montreal. 
> 
> Hesham
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mipshop mailing list
> Mipshop@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshop@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop