Subject: RE: Address config for FMIPv6 (was Re: [mobile-ip] FMIPv6: FBUtransmission text)

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 18:14:27 -0500

Hesham,

> => Yes I was suggesting all 3. But I didn't ask for 
> them to be removed from the draft. 
> 
> The problem is, I didn't say anything that disagrees
> with the above. I said, make them optional... I'm starting
> to regret saying it ;)

1. FMIPv6 is an *optional* enhancement to base IPv6 mobility
2. The WG consensus is to make this mechanism *experimental*

So what would be gained by saying HI/HACK is optional to
implement in the reactive scenario (as an example). Let
the results from implementations prove whether these are
effective or NOT. I guess you are proposing that we leave
the implementation of some of these messages optional and let
implementers decide whether they will achieve greater optimization
by incorporating them. Thats a possibility as well. Something
to get consensus on.

On a side note:
It would also be not a bad idea for the IRTF work that is
under discussion to develop tools that can be used to evaluate
the benefits of having certain messages vs not having them.

> Hesham

-Basavaraj