Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] MIPv6: D & L bit failure semantics

From: "Greg O'Shea" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 17:51:49 -0000

My suggestion was to signal failre in the ack and let the MN attempt
individual registrations if it wishes: if that compromise text is "in"
for the future then it could cover the DL case as well. 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: 08 January 2003 14:54
>To: Greg O'Shea
>Cc: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [mobile-ip] MIPv6: D & L bit failure semantics
>
>
>Greg O'Shea wrote:
>> What to do if a BU has D=1 and L=1 and the HoA fails DAD and the LLA
>> passes DAD, or vice versa?
>> 
>> Is LLA DAD failure less critical than HoA DAD failure? Or must both
>> succeed?
>
>All must succeed (the check is there even if the D bit itself 
>is gone). Based on your compromise text for the S bit issue, 
>do you think there's a need for additional clarification for this?
>
>Jari
>
>
>