Subject: Re: [Mip6] comments on draft-ohnishi-mip6-aaa-problem-statement-00.txt

From: Erik Nordmark <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 23:18:02 -0800 (PST)

> Mobile IP has certain fixed per node costs in terms of signaling that are
> definitely not there for a node that gets a lease on its DHCP address and
> hangs on to it until the lease expires. That would be the justification for
> charging more.

Presumably an operator could bill per byte/packet which would include
the mobile IP signalling packets.
Presumably an operator could also bill for each DHCP address lease
where a mobile moving around might get many short leases.

Neither of those requires any knowledge that the node uses mobile IP.

> Like I said, people's opinions about whether or not this is desirable can
> vary. :-) But I don't think the IETF should be engineering the protocol to
> favor one business model over another (see draft-iab-e2e-futures-txt for a
> discussion of tussles and how standards should work in the face of them). So
> far, I don't see anything in the protocol that does.

I don't think the debate was about designing the protocol to prohibit
a business model. Instead the discussion is about whether the protocol
should be made to explicitly support a particular business model.

One can draw parallels with ESP; you can argue that ESP prohibits a
business model where rates is different for UDP and TCP packets since
the protocol and port numbers are encrypted.
My understanding is that the arguments to change ESP to not encrypt
these didn't get a favorable reception when this was discussed a while
back.

  Erik

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2004 23:29:02 -0800

> these didn't get a favorable reception when this was discussed a while

Ack. But an ISP can bill specifically for ESP traffic, separately from what
would be billed for other services.

            jak

---

From: Yoshihiro Ohba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 11:07:17 -0800

> would be billed for other services.

That is ok, as long as the billing is as a result of "AAA for network access", 
and it does not require "AAA for ESP traffic".

Yoshihiro Ohba