[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

(usagi-users 03950) Re: Differences between USAGI and MIPv6



Hi Antti, Hi *,

Antti Tuominen <anttit@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> We hope to merge UMIP patches into MIPL once again.  These were never
> meant to be separate, but as we were gradually given less and less
> time to spend on MIPL at HUT, USAGI wanted to have their patches out
> faster than we could accomodate.  As for GO-Core, the project ended
> year and a half ago, so HUT allowed us to work on MIPL during working
> hours as a courtesy and as long as we managed our other duties as
> well.

ok.

> We met with Aramoto-san from USAGI last month, and had a little update
> where we are currently.  I have RFC4283 and RFC4285 (and related RFCs)
> support almost ready, and also did a split on the code for CN, MN and
> HA, so you can compile it either as a mip6d or separate cn6d, mn6d,
> and ha6d.  This was done to support devices that can't hold the whole
> thing and want to support just one (or two, since CN is included in
> all).

What's the difference regarding the size of resulting binaries?

> I do have a high motivation getting MIPL back up-to-date, this is more
> of a time management problem.  I hope that in the near future I have
> more time.  Now that I've spent 9 months at my new job, and also the
> sail yacht racing season is over in Finland, I should have more time
> for after work coding.

ok. Thanks for the clarification and sorry for the misunderstanding. I
might be wrong, but there are many people pushing patches at the moment
(people from usagi, patches for fmipv6, patches from sebastien, some
patches i have in the pipe). It might be a good idea to federate that
work.

Cheers,

a+