Re: issue 12: interaction with other protocols doing RR

 In your previous mail you wrote:

   > => I don't understand this necessity to even more damage Mobile IPv6.
   > Perhaps it is not yet in trouble?
   
   I agree with you. if an RR test is needed for Mobile IP, we can
   develop it in Mobile IPv6. I dont see MOBIKE's RR test used by
   Mobile IPv6.
   
=> perhaps we don't speak about the same thing: I argue the RR test
is not necessary (and as it has a cost is only a burden we should not
add) for mobile IPv4/IPv6. And it should be optional for MOBIKE,
i.e., it should be performed by the SG of a mobile VPN only if
it is in its policy. IMHO the only thing we should talk about is
what to put in the default policy (perform or not perform an RR test
by default?)

   > => we are going to use either MOBIKE between a mobile VPN client
   > and SG, or Mobile IPv6 between a MN and HA.
   
   agree completely.
   
=> so the mobile IP part of this discussion is clearly outside the
scope of both the WG and the list.
   
Regards

[email protected]