Subject: [MOBILE-IP] Rough Consensus for Option 2 (Private addresses in Mobile IP)

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:30:25 -0500

>
>At IETF45 in Oslo we decided to take the question of how to deal with
>Mobile nodes that have a private IP address and obtain consensus on
>the mailing list. The options at hand for which consensus from the WG
>is sought in order to move forward, w.r.t handling private addresses
>in Mobile IP are :
>
>1. Use co-located care of address as an option for mobile nodes with
>   private addresses when they are roaming outside their
>   administrative domains.
>
>2. Mandatory reverse tunnelling for mobile nodes that prefer to use
>   the Foreign Agents Care Of Address but have a private address.
>
>3. The WG will develop a new solution to deal with the problem of
>   private address spaces for Mobile IP.
>

Hello,

Based on the feedback received from the Working Group members, we have
a rough consensus for option 2.

Option 1 is also feasible and hence should be considered as a
possibility (depending on the MN capabilities).

The conclusion from this exercise is that Mobile nodes which have
a private IP address or belong in a domain that has private IP
addresses can work with option 2 or 1. With the near term goal being
focused on deployment issues, the WG will accept these options (2 and 1) as
a solution to this problem as we move forward.
More elegant or elaborate solutions to address the problem can be
studied by the WG over the long term.

Basavaraj Patil
Phil Roberts