Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] IPv6 Mobility Last Call Question

From: Patrik Flykt <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 09:52:09 +0300

Hello all,

> > But there might also be cases where it is the MN that is in control
> > of the "location privacy policy" i.e. the MN will decide
> when and to whom
> > it will send BU and send Home Address options vs. doing
> reverse tunneling.

IMHO, this is exactly what we should do. The MN should remain in charge of
its binding updates. All the time.

> Agreed. I would also suggest that it should be clear in
> the spec that the HA policy cannot be overridden
> by the mobile node, as long as the address (logically)
> used by the mobile is the Home Address.

I have a slight problem with the HA dictating the policy. If the HA is to be
capable of knowing which policy is the best one for which CoA, the HA must
"learn" the whole network and its topology. There are situations where the
MN can decide that a subset of the nodes can be trusted with (network)
location information. An example of the trusted nodes would be those in my
home network and at work, while the untrusted ones would basically be the
rest. If the MN would receive an incoming SIP connection request, the MN
should send a binding update to the requesting node in order to minimize
delay for the connection. An all or nothing rule imposed by the HA would not
be adequate in this case. There is a wide grey area between always reverse
tunnel and always send binding updates where the tradeoff is between
location privacy and minimized delay.

Regards,

        Patrik

---

From: "Hosam K. Rowaihy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 15:13:13 +0300

Please help me.
I would like to unsubscribe from this list but I am not able to do so.

Regards,
Hosam K .Rowaihy