Subject: [MOBILE-IP] Private addressing reference in rfc2002-bis ?

From: Samita Chakrabarti <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 15:44:29 -0800

draft-ietf-mobileip-privaddr-00.txt has expired on Dec 1999 and I see that
 it points to rfc2002 for inclusion of a new 'P' bit in the FA advertisement
 in order to advertise it's willingness to support privately addressed
 mobile nodes. Now should draft-ietf-mobileip-rfc2002-bis-01.txt  include a
 'P' bit for private addressing support ?
 According to the reverse tunneling specification, T bit alone is
 not capable of handling overlapping private addresses of MNs belonging
 to two different HAs.

Also, I am curious to find out:

 -Current status of the private address draft-- will there be a new draft soon ?

 - Does it make sense for RFC2344 to  specify that it should be able to handle
   communication between FA and two different MNs having same private addresses
   (but different home agents) visiting this FA  ?

 -How do we specify the mipagent behavior in the simple case scenario when
  we have global foreign agent address, global home agent address ( one side
  of the HA has public address and the other side has private address and
  private MNs have home addresses on this private subnet ) and privately
  addressed MNs are talking to each other on different foreign links ?

-Samita

---

From: Petri Bernhard <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 18:26:26 +0100

Hi Samita,

I don't know whether the authors of draft-ietf-mobileip-privaddr-00.txt
intend to provide a new version, but I remember that Charlie, when
presenting the draft in Oslo, pointed to a number of remaining issues
related to the draft. As the handling of private addresses in Mobile IP was
again mentioned to be an open issue at the Washington meeting, I assumed
that there was no intention for further work on the draft, so I've therefore
submitted the new  draft-petri-mobileip-pipe-00.txt.

You mention the proposal for the definition of a new 'P' bit in the FA
advertisement, by which an FA indicates its ability/willingness to support
privately addressed mobile nodes. The proposal looks like being quite useful
to me, even if it may not be clear at this time, how the final handling of
private addresses in Mobile IP may look like. Maybe, one idea could be to
interpret that 'P' bit even in a more generic sense, i.e. that the FA can
handle private addresses in general, e.g. also when communicating with a
privately addressed HA.

Kind regards

- Bernhard
____________________________________________________________________________
______________________

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Samita Chakrabarti [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 12:44 AM
> To:   [email-masked]
> Subject:      [MOBILE-IP] Private addressing reference in rfc2002-bis ?
>