Maybe I'm just paranoid but does anyone think that it should be recommended that integrity protection of some sort be done when a mobile uses a site local address as source when a packet is tunneled to the home site?
Regards,
Glenn
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francis Dupont [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 4:21 PM
> To: JINMEI Tatuya / ????
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: poposed changes to the scoping architecture draft
>
>
> In your previous mail you wrote:
>
> 1. revise the mobility section to clarify issues about using
> site-local addresses with mobile IPv6:
>
> => I disagree with your solution because it takes more than a few line
> to describe it (:-).
> IMHO site-local addresses in a mobile IPv6 work well if only a
> bidirectional tunnel is used between the mobile and its home agent.
> Note there should be no penalty because by definition communications
> in the same site are local, so the only difference with routing
> optimization is the encapsulaion overhead.
> Another important point is an equivalent way to describe this solution
> is to say the bidirectional tunnel belongs to the home site.
>
> + thus, we recommend to use global home/care-of
> addresses *whenever
> possible*.
>
> => I agree because this avoids to have a bi-sited node.
> (no further comment about multi-site support in some IPv6 stacks :-).
>
> 2. revise the textual representation section
>
> => I agree if you still allow names (not ambiguous and mapped to
> the pair type/id in a local config file).
>
> 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]
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
