Re: New issue 16: No packets from other end?

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   > => there will be one: this is not the job of MOBIKE to specify one,
   > but this is the job of MULTI6 and MIP6.
   
   Re: MIP6. There's been a draft or two about extending Mobile IPv6
   to support multihoming (parallel addresses as opposed to serial ones).
   However, this does not appear to be a work item in any of the current
   IETF working groups related to Mobile IPv6.
   
   Re: MULTI6. This is being worked on. But there are a couple of issues.
   First, MULTI6 explicitly decided to handled the pure IPv6 problem
   only. It seems that the solution their design team is thinking of
   is going to work only for IPv6 without an easy extension to IPv4.
   Secondly, since there are no detailed or official solution drafts
   yet available for the failure detection part, its kind of hard to
   tell whether it could be ripped out of MULTI6 and used for supporting
   MOBIKE. Maybe. But probably more as an idea rather than relying
   on what the MULTI6 module is telling MOBIKE. In fact, if you had
   MULTI6 running and you were satisfied with the limitation to IPv6,
   you would not need MOBIKE, right?
   
=> you don't believe what you wrote (RFC 1918 is cited in your MULTI6 DT
draft :-).
My concern is clear: MOBIKE should not be a substitute of the whole OS,
even on a SG it can become the central task.

Regards

[email protected]