In your previous mail you wrote:
The mobility draft has at various points or times talked about swapping the
source address in the IPv6 header and the address in the home address
option. This is OK conceptually and I understand that some implementations
actually work that way. But at least in our implementation, we treat packet
data as read-only. I would not like to see specifications that assumed the
swapping really does happen.
=> I understand your concern but:
- routing header processing already specifies a real swap (then if home
agent option has the symmetrical effect it may use the same way to do it)
- current specifications don't say if I (real swap) or you (don't swap
data but only swap pointers) do the right thing and only one is correct
(because AH won't give the same message digest in both cases).
This must be fixed!
There is a source address selection problem on mobile nodes: when do you use
a home address vs a care-of address? The default source address selection
rules as currently specified don't always produce the desired results.
(There aren't any special rules or provisions for mobility.)
=> this (no rule/provision for mobility) is a well-known open issue
in your I-D about source address selection. This thread will help us
to see what we need for it...
Considering the case of a mobile node initiating a TCP connection to a
global address, with a choice of a global home address and a global care-of
address, I think the desirable default behavior to use the global home
address for the TCP endpoint and insert the home address option (and a
binding-update option in the SYN).
=> I agree
I think this is the desirable default
even if the care-of address and the destination address appear to be
topologically closer than the home address and the destination address.
=> this is less clear, for instance if you use mobility IPv6 in a nomadic
case (ie. you are in visit somewhere, you'd like to use the home facility
(with your hostname, addresses, ...) and the local facility (the local
printer for instance) and you'll shutdown your box before moving) then
you'd like to use the care-of address for local communications.
If you are moving rather fast in a cellular network you'd never want
to use the care-of address (the opposite case).
I believe we need a rule for local usage of the care-of with some levels
of locallity (node / link / site ?) and give the choice/control to users.
Regards
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
