netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [patch]: ipv6 tunnel for MIPv6

To: Henrik Petander <lpetande@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [patch]: ipv6 tunnel for MIPv6
From: Ville Nuorvala <vnuorval@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 11:36:47 +0300 (EEST)
Cc: YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明 <yoshfuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <davem@xxxxxxxxxx>, <kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx" <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <ajtuomin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Venkata Jagana <jagana@xxxxxxxxxx>, <kumarkr@xxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0306041941480.8428-100000@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 4 Jun 2003, Henrik Petander wrote:

> Hello Yoshifuji,
>
> On Thu, 5 Jun 2003, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [iso-2022-jp] 吉藤英明 wrote:
> > In article <3EDE0286.4000304@xxxxxxxxxx> (at Wed, 04 Jun 2003 17:30:30 
> > +0300), Henrik Petander <lpetande@xxxxxxxxxx> says:
> >
> > > 2. Source address based routing
> >
> > I'm not sure why you need this (and tunnel) for MIP...
> > Would you clearify for me?
> > (IMHO, I believe we don't need this change if we use XFRM engine.)
>
> As far as I remember there  are three main reasons for this: (Ville
> correct me if  forgot something)

I think you've got all the main reasons. I'll get back to this issue
if I suddenly remember something you forgot. :)


-Ville
--
Ville Nuorvala
Research Assistant, Institute of Digital Communications,
Helsinki University of Technology
email: vnuorval@xxxxxxxxxx, phone: +358 (0)9 451 5257



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