Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Consensus vote: Private addresses and Mobile IP

From: "Lipford, Mark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Aug 1999 15:46:36 -0500

This sounds like a reasonable solution

                -----Original Message-----
                From:   Patrik Flykt [mailto:[email-masked]]
                Sent:   Friday, July 30, 1999 7:17 AM
                To:     [email-masked]
                Subject:        Re: [MOBILE-IP] Consensus vote: Private
addresses and Mobile IP

                        Hello,

                > 1. Use co-located care of address as an option for mobile
nodes with
                >    private addresses when they are roaming outside their
                >    administrative domains.
                >
                > 2. Mandatory reverse tunneling for mobile nodes that
prefer to use
                >    the Foreign Agents Care Of Address but have a private
address.

                Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't both co-located COAs
and FA COAs be
                equally supported ? Sometimes the MN will roam into a
network with Foreign
                Agent functionality, and sometimes it will acquire an
address by DHCP or
                some other means. I think both options should be supported,
therefore I
                believe that both 1) and 2) should be done.

                Regards,

                        Patrik Flykt

---

From: "BINAR, Simon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 1999 14:35:21 +0100

There have been a lot of discussions highlighting both pros and cons for
the adoption of Options 1 and 2. How about the following extremely
simple possibility:

- Not to specify anything new.
- To write somewhere in an informational RFC that any MN roaming outside
the private corporate network should be configured with a globally
routable (home) IP address, or should use a (dynamically assigned) CCOA.

I am thinking about this due to the following thoughts/observations:

- Machines configured with fixed IP addresses can be 1) either
difficult-to-move desktop machines or 2) easy-to-move
laptops/PDAs/etc... The first category of machine wouldn't require MIP
support, since it can be assumed that the machine will most of the time
stay at the same place. The second category of machine probably will not
be happy to be configured with a private address, since by definition it
is mobile. It may be frequently moving outside of its subnet, and may
even frequently move from one site of a corporation to another (where a
conflict of private addresses could also occur simply because different
IT departments did not coordinate the allocation of private addresses to
hosts). Thus, it would make more sense to either dynamically assign an
IP address to this second category of machine or configure it with a
fixed address for use with MIP.

- More and more hosts use dynamic IP address allocation, simply because
it makes more sense from an economic point of view - both for
ISPs/network operators and private corporations...

So I am just questioning, looking at real-world situations, whether MIP
really needs to be extended to support private addresses...

Just being provocative, comments most welcome...

Simon

DISCLAIMER:  Any views or opinions expressed in
this E-Mail message should be considered as the
personal views/opinions of the author.  They do
not  necessarily  represent  the  views  of the
author's employer.

> From: Basavaraj Patil [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 27 July 1999 19:50
> Subject: [MOBILE-IP] Consensus vote: Private addresses and Mobile IP
>
>
> Hello,
>
> At IETF45 in Oslo we decided to take the question of how to deal with
> Mobile nodes that have a private IP address and obtain consensus on
> the mailing list. The options at hand for which consensus from the WG
> is sought in order to move forward, w.r.t handling private addresses
> in Mobile IP are :
>
> 1. Use co-located care of address as an option for mobile nodes with
> 2. Mandatory reverse tunneling for mobile nodes that prefer to use
>    the Foreign Agents Care Of Address but have a private address.
>
> 3. The WG will develop a new solution to deal with the problem of
>    private address spaces for Mobile IP.
>
> Please mail your opinion to the mailing list or, to me or Phil
> Roberts.
>
> Basavaraj Patil
> Phil Roberts
>

---

From: "Lipford, Mark" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999 11:32:43 -0500

As a planned MIP service provider we are hearing from potential customers
that support of dynamic and private IP addressing for MIP service is high on
the priority list.  I would stand strong on my previous statements that we
need to have private dynamic IP addressing supported.

Regards

                -----Original Message-----
                From:   BINAR, Simon [mailto:[email-masked]]
                Sent:   Monday, August 16, 1999 8:35 AM
                To:     [email-masked]
                Subject:        Re: [MOBILE-IP] Consensus vote: Private
addresses and Mobile IP

                There have been a lot of discussions highlighting both pros
and cons for
                the adoption of Options 1 and 2. How about the following
extremely
                simple possibility:

                - Not to specify anything new.
                - To write somewhere in an informational RFC that any MN
roaming outside
                the private corporate network should be configured with a
globally
                routable (home) IP address, or should use a (dynamically
assigned) CCOA.

                I am thinking about this due to the following
thoughts/observations:

                - Machines configured with fixed IP addresses can be 1)
either
                difficult-to-move desktop machines or 2) easy-to-move
                laptops/PDAs/etc... The first category of machine wouldn't
require MIP
                support, since it can be assumed that the machine will most
of the time
                stay at the same place. The second category of machine
probably will not
                be happy to be configured with a private address, since by
definition it
                is mobile. It may be frequently moving outside of its
subnet, and may
                even frequently move from one site of a corporation to
another (where a
                conflict of private addresses could also occur simply
because different
                IT departments did not coordinate the allocation of private
addresses to
                hosts). Thus, it would make more sense to either dynamically
assign an
                IP address to this second category of machine or configure
it with a
                fixed address for use with MIP.

                - More and more hosts use dynamic IP address allocation,
simply because
                it makes more sense from an economic point of view - both
for
                ISPs/network operators and private corporations...

                So I am just questioning, looking at real-world situations,
whether MIP
                really needs to be extended to support private addresses...

                Simon

nodes with
prefer to use
address.