Re: issue 12: interaction with other protocols doing RR

Um, thanx Francis. Your application of a baseball bat has driven the point
home. :-)

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Francis Dupont" <[email protected]>
To: "James Kempf" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Vijay Devarapalli" <[email protected]>; "MOBIKE Mailing List"
<[email protected]>; <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 5:46 AM
Subject: Re: [Mobike] issue 12: interaction with other protocols doing RR


> In your previous mail you wrote:
>
>    > 1. I am not sure we are going to be using MOBIKE between
>    >     a MN and HA (when they are already doing Mobile IPv6
>    >     signaling. BU is your MOBIKE update message).
>    > 2. no need to have some kind of interaction between the
>    >     IKE stack and the Mobile IPv6 stack
>
>    I think it would be useful to compare the two solutions.
>
>    I have not read your IKEv2 for MIP draft, but I am interested to know
if
>    some of the backdoor API changes in IPsec mentioned in RFC 3776 could
be
>    removed if the HA and MN support MOBIKE. Do you think this would be
>    possible?
>
> => Jak, it seems you missed an important point: Mobile IPv6 and
> MOBIKE are two *incompatible* solutions for the same problem (if
> you restrict things to IPv6 mobility without optimization).
>
> Regards
>
> [email protected]
>