Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] -HMIPv6 draft + Privacy draft-

From: "Glenn Morrow" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 08:05:46 -0600

Thanks Claude,
 
I'll take a look. I am hoping others will follow suit with more candidates
as well. This location privacy thing is one of the last "what's missings". I
have to say I have found it very uncomfortable going forward on solutions to
other aspects of the problem with this issue dangling.

-----Original Message-----
From: Claude Castelluccia [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2001 3:48 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [mobile-ip] -HMIPv6 draft + Privacy draft-

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-p
rivacy-00.txt
<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
<http://www.inrialpes.fr/planete/people/ccastel/draft-ietf-mobileip-hmipv6-0
3.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. 

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

        Hesham

-- 

----------------------------------------

Claude CASTELLUCCIA, INRIA Rhone-Alpes  

ph:  +33 4.76.61.52.15 (fax: 52.52)

http://www.inrialpes.fr/planete/ <http://www.inrialpes.fr/planete/>

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 07:50:20 -0800 (PST)

> other aspects of the problem with this issue dangling.

   Hmm. I suspect that IP location privacy is not just a MIP
   issue. It certainly comes up in VoIP-land regularly when
   wanting to provide "caller-id blocking" where you need to
   provide complete anonymity for a caller, the canonical
   example being the battered wife not wanting hubby to use
   the incoming RTP packets to guess where she is. For SIP,
   the general consensus was to just build a SIP anonymizer
   out of a back to back UA, but that is hardly a general 
   purpose mechanism.

   I believe that there have been BOF's in the past about
   location (SPACIAL, I think), though I didn't attend. The
   topic does, however, keep coming up. I really wonder whether:

   a) this really belongs in MIP WG on the one hand
   b) whether MIP may provide a good foundation to
      solve the general problem on the other hand

		Mike