Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Some questions on Hierarchical MIPv6

From: "Glenn Morrow" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 18:22:40 -0600

Yes - there is no accepted or even tabled proposal yet for route optimal
location privacy. I believe it is a requirement even MIP should strive for
as we move forward.

	=> True. But the same goes for any IP adderss in the hierarchical
	IPv6 world. Right ?

	Hesham

---

From: Claude Castelluccia <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 10:47:57 +0100

Hello,

We actually have a  (preliminary) draft that tries to tackle the problem
of route optimal location privacy in MIPv6.
The draft (draft-castelluccia-mobileip-privacy-00.txt) can be retrieved
from my web site :
http://www.inrialpes.fr/planete/people/ccastel/draft-castelluccia-mobileip-privacy-00.txt
or from the IETF
ID repository...

Note also that we have a new version of HMIPv6 (version 3) that
clarifies some aspects of HMIPv6 and
highlights some of its advantages (see section 6.5 or 6.6 for example).
This new version can be retrieved at:
http://www.inrialpes.fr/planete/people/ccastel/draft-ietf-mobileip-hmipv6-03.txt

comments welcome....

regards,

Claude.

Glenn Morrow wrote:

>
>
> Yes - there is no accepted or even tabled proposal yet for route
> optimal location privacy. I believe it is a requirement even MIP
> should strive for as we move forward.
>
>
>

--

----------------------------------------
Claude CASTELLUCCIA, INRIA Rhone-Alpes
ph:  +33 4.76.61.52.15 (fax: 52.52)
http://www.inrialpes.fr/planete/