Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Final Agenda for Mobile IP WG meeting at IETF50

From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 21:44:23 +0100

> > I think the other draft you refer to from NTT DOCOMO is also
> > relevant to the MIP work. Obviously the authors think so 
> > that's why it was submitted to MIP. 
> 
> Right, as has many other I-Ds that are not necessarily of relevance to the WG,
> and not in charter. Just because someone believes an I-D belongs in a WG
> doesn't mean it does.
> 
	=> Sure, but I got my opinion when I read the draft
	in question. Anyway, everyone is entitled to present 
	their draft in their chosen WG, at last once :)

	Hesham

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:30:18 -0800 (PST)

> 	their draft in their chosen WG, at last once :)
Then perhaps I can share an snippet from an e-mail from the TSV ADs to WG
chairs, which should apply to all WGs IMHO:

"A while back we sent you a note reminding you that we do not want to take
valuable face-to-face IETF session time to have people present their
Internet Drafts.  If someone has published an Internet Draft, and that
draft has been discussed on the working group mailing list, and confusions
or issues have come up during that discussion, then it is reasonable to take
session time to discuss those issues. (Assuming that the topic of the
Internet Draft falls within the existing Working Group charter: another
practice we wish to discourage is using face-to-face time to "try out" new
topics for the working group - this should be minimized, and used only when
truly pressing new views of the WG mission have emerged.  And such topics
should be discussed with the ADs before session discussion).

[...]

Scott & Allison"

Food for thought.

PatC

---

From: Theo Pagtzis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:12:29 -0800

Hi all,

   I would appreiciate if the HMIP authors could shed some light in some statements
in the hmipv6-02 draft that got out recently.

In extended mode you state that the MN should use as CoA (ACoA) the IP of the MAP.
The question is which one the home address or the onlink (LCoA)?

If a MAP is serving as a mobile AR you enforce that it must advertise its and all
MAP options available. Does that imply that the 'preference' is specific here?

Further (page 20, top statement) you state that this would allow the MN to obtain a
new topologically correct RCoA. Do you really mean RCoA or CoA (i.e. LCoA). The
reason I ask here is because you state that in the extended mode the MN is bound to
use the mobile AR/MAP IP address.

Also you state that the MN should send a BU to the (further ???) MAP to bind its
Home Addr with the MR's CoA. Can you explain why you need to do that? Do you mean
by further, a MAP higher (upstream) in the routing hierarchy?

How can you possibly have location privacy if the upstream packets have as their
source address the MNs LCoA. If you do not have the LCoA as the source address,
then start praying over egress filtering.

If you have load balancing effected which RCoA do you send back to the HA?

Regs.

Theo

UCL / Mobile systems