Subject: [mobile-ip] 'S' bit and address defense issues

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 00:46:50 +0300

Hi,

Vijay has reformulated issues related to the 'S' bit and
the HA's defense of home addresses in a new way. (Thanks,
Vijay!) The old issues were #23 and #30. The new issues
can be found from the following links.

http://www.piuha.net./~jarkko/publications/mipv6/issues/issue38.txt
http://www.piuha.net./~jarkko/publications/mipv6/issues/issue39.txt

I think the proposals look very reasonable. Do folks agree?

Jari

---

From: Vladislav Yasevich <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 18:09:33 -0400

Hi all

I have a problem with the solution to issue 39.  As has
been discusses for a while on both IPv6 and Mobile IP lists,
the posession of a non link-local address does not gurantee
posession of link-local address.  We can't gurantee that the
waste on the HA will be all that small.

My proposal (which was slightly mis-stated) removes any waste
at all.  The proposal is to define a bit in the BU message
(lets call it 'L').  The bit will be set to 1 when the HOA
contains the address to be used to form the link-local address.
The link-local address generation will happen as discribed in issues 38
and 39.

There are no additional options (all we do is reserver a bit).

-vlad

-- 
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Vladislav Yasevich	       Tru64 UNIX - IPv6 Project Lead
Hewlett Packard 	       Tel: (603) 884-1079
Nashua, NH 03062	       ZKO3-3/T07

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 15:42:50 -0700

> The link-local address generation will happen as discribed in issues 38

this if fine with me. I thought your solution involved a new
suboption containing the interface id.

Vijay