RE: MIPv6 hopeless

["Tony Li" <Tony.Li@procket.com>]

Indeed.  What's the difference between a zero homed host and
one that simply acquired a DHCP address?

Also, the protocol should not require modifications to support
multiple home agents.  That should be a property of the implementation
since the interaction should only be pairwise at any given time.

Tony


|    -----Original Message-----
|    From: Masataka Ohta [mailto:mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp] 
|    Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 7:26 PM
|    To: Tim Shepard
|    Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org
|    Subject: Re: MIPv6 hopeless
|    
|    
|    Tim Shepard;
|    
|    > > A properly designed mobility protocol should support multiple
|    > > home agents at multiple locations.
|    > 
|    > And I would also like to see support for the homeless 
|    mobile node.
|    > So "multiple home agents" should range from zero to many.
|    
|    I'm afraid that the analogy between multihoming and mobility
|    works here and that the homeless mobile node will be as useful
|    as a zero homed sites in which hosts have zero prefixes.
|    
|    							Masataka Ohta
|    
|