Re: [CARD Technical Issue] Dropping FMIPv6 piggybacking

> I see, but I am not sure if a "try-and-error" mechanism for discovery is
> much better, in particular since this procedure needs to be performed
> with each AR the MN attaches to, right?
> This is simpler with the current mechanism, since the MN knows in advance
> if it will suceed with performing CARD via FMIP or not with its next AR.
> If not, then the MN can use the stand-alone CARD mechanism. In your
example
> it should be distinguished between "piggybacking capable" and "CARD
capable"
> nodes. Only the first support can be identified with the P-flag.
>

OK, I think I see your point.

We've decided not to allow piggybacking in CTP, though it might be useful
later. It would be good if we could at least have *some* consistency between
the two protocols (after all, they are coming out of the same WG).

I still think it would be good to leave it out, for simplicity. Maybe we
could put a statement in saying "Whether or not to piggyback CARD on other
protocols should be allowed is a research question open for experiment." I
think there will be some amount of experimentation and consolidation when we
finish with CARD, to establish good interoperability with other protocols.
This is not likely to be the only place where better interoperability is
required.

            jak