From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Antti Tuominen Subject: Re: [PATCH] Mobile IPv6 for 2.5.40 (request for kernel inclusion) Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 14:04:17 +0300 Sender: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com Message-ID: <20021002110416.GC17010@morphine.tml.hut.fi> References: <20021002.183113.16291158.yoshfuji@wide.ad.jp> <20021002.184418.121132248.yoshfuji@wide.ad.jp> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: pekkas@netcore.fi, davem@redhat.com, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, netdev@oss.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, torvalds@transmeta.com Return-path: To: "YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / 吉藤英明" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021002.184418.121132248.yoshfuji@wide.ad.jp> Errors-to: netdev-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 06:44:18PM +0900, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / ?$B5HF#1QL@?(B wrote: > In article (at Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:33:21 +0300 (EEST)), Pekka Savola says: > > > On Wed, 2 Oct 2002, YOSHIFUJI Hideaki / [iso-2022-jp] 吉藤英明 wrote: > > > In article (at Wed, 2 Oct 2002 12:25:37 +0300 (EEST)), Pekka Savola 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. We do support Draft 18 in our development code (tested last week at ETSI IPv6 Plugtest and mostly working), but since Draft 15 was the last implementable draft (no _draft_ issues, compared to large number of inconcistencies and contradictions in draft 18) and we've had time to test the code properly, we decided to submit working code over latest code. Draft 15 based code is tested and works. To get Mobile IPv6 in the kernel we felt that it is more important to have solid, tested code rather than our latest devel code for the submission. Of course we are committed to providing the latest draft revision compliant code immediately when it's available. But we don't feel draft 18 is the answer since draft 19 will soon be out and should address rest of the 126 issues raised about drafts 16, 17 and 18. If the kernel maintainers feel differently, we are happy to provide you with our latest code implementing most of draft 18. Regards, Antti -- Antti J. Tuominen, Gyldenintie 8A 11, 00200 Helsinki, Finland. Research assistant, Institute of Digital Communications at HUT work: ajtuomin@tml.hut.fi; home: tuominen@iki.fi