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

From: "Hesham Soliman (EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 16:33:20 +0200

Jari, 

  > Global unicast addresses are obviously allowed. I think 
  > link-locals can also
  > be used for dereg to the HA. And, wouldn't it be bad if 
  > made it illegal
  > to use MIPv6 within a site that uses only site-local 
  > addresses? So that
  > was the justification for allowing all unicast addresses. 
  > However, on
  > second look this covers also NSAP addresss, the unspecified 
  > address etc.
  > 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.

Hesham

---

From: Vladislav Yasevich <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 11:56:00 -0400

FWIW, I agree with Hesham.  Site-Locals are not trivially handled
if the HA is multi-sited (it's a little easier on MN).  So, for the
sake of simplicity of the protocol (which is already rather
complex), let's remove the site-local use.

-vlad

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