RE: [nemo] NEMOv4 vs DS-MIPv6

["Soliman, Hesham" <[e-mail]>]

It is in the published draft. We don't talk about MNP tables but 
that doesn't mean we don't support it. 

Hesham
 

 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[e-mail]] 
 > Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2006 1:52 PM
 > To: Soliman, Hesham
 > Cc: Keiichi SHIMA; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
 > [e-mail]
 > Subject: Re: [nemo] NEMOv4 vs DS-MIPv6
 > 
 > Soliman, Hesham wrote:
 > > 
 > >>> Tsirtsis, George wrote:
 > >>>> P.S.: BTW, Hesham is telling me that DS-MIPv6 spec does
 > >> support IPv4
 > >>>> prefixes
 > >>> 
 > >>> ... where?  The draft only says MR should attach a
 > >> prefixlen on the v4
 > >>> HoA in a IPv4 hoa option.  Is there a way to communicate
 > >> v4 MNPs that
 > >>> are not related to the HoA?  Is it possible to specify
 > >> several v4 MNPs?
 > >> 
 > >> I think I raised the feature in the Vancouver meeting and 
 > I believe
 > >>  authors incorporated the function to carry multiple 
 > v4pfxes in the
 > >>  draft.
 > >> 
 > >> The issue 57 is that proposal I raised, and it seems it had been 
 > >> accepted.
 > >> 
 > >> Maybe a short status report of this topic from the authors make 
 > >> your question clear.
 > > 
 > > => What Keiichi said is correct. We included this based on his 
 > > comments.
 > 
 > Ah I see, thanks.  I based my remarks on the published draft.  I'll
 > wait for the next draft cycle to see whether MNP can be 
 > different than
 > HoA, and I will comment then.
 > 
 > Alex
 >