netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] Mobile IPv6 for 2.5.40 (request for kernel inclusion)

To: pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Mobile IPv6 for 2.5.40 (request for kernel inclusion)
From: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 18:44:18 +0900 (JST)
Cc: ajtuomin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0210021232110.27910-100000@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20021002.183113.16291158.yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0210021232110.27910-100000@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0210021232110.27910-100000@xxxxxxxxxx> (at Wed, 2 Oct 
2002 12:33:21 +0300 (EEST)), Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx> says:

> On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [iso-2022-jp] 吉藤英明 wrote:
> > In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0210021224350.27873-100000@xxxxxxxxxx> (at Wed, 2 
> > Oct 2002 12:25:37 +0300 (EEST)), Pekka Savola <pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx> says:
> > 
> > > I believe MIPL implements an old version of MIPv6 (draft -15 or so).
> > > 
> > > Or do you support -18 ?
> > 
> > We believe we should do -18, not -15 at all.
> 
> Well, www.mipl.mediapoli.com front page at least refers to -15, but you 
> should know better :-)

I meant, we should go with -18 (or later).  
(If the MIPL supports only -15,) -15 is too old.

--yoshfuji


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>