| 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@netcore.fi> |
| References: | <20021002.183113.16291158.yoshfuji@wide.ad.jp> <Pine.LNX.4.44.0210021232110.27910-100000@netcore.fi> |
| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Mobile IPv6 for 2.5.40 (request for kernel inclusion), Pekka Savola |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Mobile IPv6 for 2.5.40 (request for kernel inclusion), YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Mobile IPv6 for 2.5.40 (request for kernel inclusion), Pekka Savola |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH] Mobile IPv6 for 2.5.40 (request for kernel inclusion), Antti Tuominen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |