Greg Daley wrote:
There is no problem with the RCoA and LCoA differing only in prefix if the LCoA and RCoA are based on RFC3041 addresses.
A-ha, that sounds like a tangible goal. I mean there is a big if in your phrasing. I still need to understand how this would work in practice (answering your question on if I'm interested on tech details). Currently HMIPv6 has no RFC 3041 in it, so saying it might be made to work, it is ok, but saying that HMIPv6 provides location privacy is not quite ok (IMHO). And, this of course depends on what the location privacy problem is (if any).
[snip text on functioning]
For communications completed while the RCoA is unchanged, the MN can use a 3041 based RCoA, and not use the MIPv6 Home Address options (or use the RCoA as a home address), in which case there is
no identity information in the packets sent or received from the MN to correspondent nodes, and no location information more accurate than which MAP the MN is using.
Please try to track a user in this situation!
That is ok, I agree. (You must be sure MAP maintains the right association between one LCoA and several RCoAs (RCoAs change for rfc 3041 reasons, if I understand correctly).)
The MAP is a HA, that's all. RO is not used, so CN knows nothing about the location. So this is pure Mobile IPv6. That's why I tried to distinguish between Mobile IPv6 and HMIPv6.
What one really obtains with HMIP is that one gets assigned two addresses and is free to inform its CN about one of those addresses. Nothing about a location being assigned to an address,
let alone the question of hiding that location.
Locations are implied by IPv6 subnet information in the LCoA. IP access subnets which span greater areas than a city are a bad idea IMHO.
Aha, so location is the IPv6 subnet information where the MN is attached. That is the location. That is what it is tried to be hidden from CN.
If you're more interested in the technical details, then we can take this to Mobile-IP WG.
Yes, I'm interested in the technical details, but I'm afraid of cluttering the Mobile IP group with this, they have a much more important job now.
Until we figure out where to do it, let me say that I agree with most of your points, but not all. And that I will try to refrain from posting on ipng as well.
Alex GBU
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
