On Thu, 17 Oct 2002, Antti Tuominen wrote:
> Intermediate revision of the specification "Draft 18++" appeared a few
> days ago, which addressed most of the issues with earlier drafts (16,
> 17, 18). This made it possible to update our code to something usable
> (later than 15). This patch set has support for most of it.
Sounds great. Hopefully it slows down a bit from being a moving target.
> To Alexey, (and everyone else)
> The patch has been split for easier reading as follows:
> ipv6_tunnel.patch 6over6 tunneling
> network_mods.patch Modifications to network code and hooks
> mipv6_cn_support.patch Correspondent node support (+common code)
> mipv6_mn_support.patch Mobile node support (+common code with HA)
> mipv6_ha_support.patch Home agent support
I didn't look at these that much, but I'll make two generic observations:
1) current tunneling (including sanity checks which are, I believe, a bit
non-existant at the moment) should be generalized to handle v6-in-v6 and
v6-in-v4 tunneling anyway. Not sure if this is the right way, but that's
IMO one priority item.
2) without IPSEC, there is no way to secure MN-HA traffic. Therefore I
think the first priority is being able to support Correspondent Node
I belive Alexey, Davem et al are best to justify whether this feels like a
Having IPSEC + MIPv6 in 2.6 series would be Really Cool, though :-)
Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords