Re: MIPv6 hopeless

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Marcelo;

> Moreover, as you mention, the role of the HA is not appropriate for
> multi-homing support.

Then, which part of MIPv6 basic protocol,

> The basic protocol, i.e. the packet formats required to provide
> multi-homing support are similar to those required to provide mobility
> support (BU, BA), so the protocol itself can be reused (i am not talking
> about node behaviors or even roles defined by MIPv6)

are you saying, can be reused?

Ones between MN and CN? How is the security, then?

> I agree with you that the mobile node behavior (in particular the
> timers) are not suitable to be used to provide multi-homing support.

It should be noted that the behavior is not suitable to be used
to provide mobility (because it is not suitable for any application),
either, which is one of a reason among many why I say MIPv6 hopeless.

							Masataka Ohta