Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] issues 92, 94, 95 and text for sending BAs with R H

From: Samita Chakrabarti <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 18:31:09 -0700 (PDT)

>   > So perhaps we should stick with "link-local, site-local, or 
>   > global unicast
>   > addresses".
> 
> => There were some complicaitons with Site-local addresses
> that I raised in the meeting. Just to reiterate, it is hard for
> a MN to know if it's in the home site or not or in two sites at the
> same time. This makes it difficult to use Site-local CoAs. 
> Also, if the HA is multi-sited then how does it know which
> site the MN belongs to? these may not be difficult issues (?) 
> but they're not trivial either. I think that we would need 
> to add substantial text to discuss these cases. If I remember
> correctly, there was a suggestion from Erik to remove any 
> reference to Site-local in the draft. I don't know how much of 
> a loss it would be, but given time constraints, this seems
> like a reasonable way to go.

Seconded.

-Samita

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 20:06:58 +0300

>>=> There were some complicaitons with Site-local addresses

Ok, let's ignore site-local then. The rule for CNs is to verify
that the address is a global unicast address. For HAs we'll allow
link-local as well.

Jari