Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Re: Comments on Regional Registration

From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 23:20:52 +0100

Hello Charlie, 

>  
> > GM> I agree, I support anycast too. To vilify a solution which employs 
> > it as magic was wrong and I apologize. 
> 
> No need for apology, but I wanted to point out that this particular 
> use of anycast is easy to implement, assuming that one's IPv6 
> implementation supports anycast at all.  
> 
	=> I'm a bit confused by this statement. How can it be easy 
	to implement a BU to an anycast address ?
	BUs have to be secured with AH, so how can you setup this 
	security association when there are no standards defined 
	to do so ?

	Regards,
	Hesham

---

From: Charlie Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:37:51 -0800

Hello Hesham,

We want to get the routing part figured out, and I believe
we have a pretty good handle on it.

Setting up security will allow a mobile node to provide
authentication data that can be checked by one of the
anycast group members.  I know several ways to do that.
It will be more productive to start on that task once two
other things are out of the way:
- Fixing the authentication mechanism for base Mobile IPv6
- Getting the routing part figured out.

If you wish to disqualify all anycast-based solutions because
there are no standards for establishing security between a
node and the members of an anycast group, then I would
just prefer to say that we believe the problem is wholly
solvable for the particular anycast group we have designed.
We don't intend to get in the business of solving it for the
general case.

Regards,
Charlie P.