Subject: [MOBILE-IP] Reverse Tunneling rfc and Limited Private address support

From: Samita Chakrabarti <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:28:08 -0800

A few IETFs ago, it was decided by the working group (as I was told)
to include limited private address support along with reverse tunnel
support. That means a foreign agent with advertising "T" will support
private addressed mobile nodes in a limited way.

It was felt that extensive private address solution is not quite
necessary when the industry is moving to adopt mobile IPv6.

Now there are some important requirements and some other guidance
went into draft-ietf-mobileip-rfc2344-bis-03.txt which is currently
in the RFC editor's queue. The requirements actually are in the
appendix section A.4.

The basic requirements for LPAS are:
   Mobile IP MUST set the 'T' bit and employ reverse tunneling.

   Foreign agents MUST support reverse tunneling in order to
   support private addressed mobile nodes. If a foreign agent supports
   reverse tunneling, then it MUST support the simple scenario of private
   address support described in this section.
   All advertising interfaces of the foreign agent MUST have
   publicly routable care-of address

   Any home agent address used by mobile nodes in
   registration request MUST be a publicly routable address.

Now according to the rules, Appendix section *cannot* mandate
any requirements and since the reverse tunneling draft is now
about to become the RFC, I'd like to propose to have another
draft (either extension to reverse tunnel rfc or another form)
for these requirements.  I'll be happy to produce/initiate such
draft by next IETF.

At the San Diego IETF I was told by some ISP representatives that
these information is useful for them.

BTW, Sun's mobileip implementation supports LPAS scenario and we will
be happy to test/interoperate with any other such implementation
at Connectathon, 2001.

Comments ?

Thanks,
-Samita Chakrabarti

---

From: James Kempf <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:36:20 -0800

If the IETF rules don't allow appendicies to be binding and there is
need for some additional standards action on these, then I'd say
a draft is needed.

                jak

>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-MD5: jN8UY+T+PYt1wI5kn8ifOw==
>Approved-By: Samita Chakrabarti <[email-masked]>
>Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 10:28:08 -0800
>From: Samita Chakrabarti <[email-masked]>
>Subject: [MOBILE-IP] Reverse Tunneling rfc and Limited Private address support
>X-cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
[email-masked]
>To: [email-masked]
>