In your previous mail you wrote: > There is no constraint on sites where are the regular correspondent nodes > (aka correspondent domains) which should be the vast majority of sites. I am concerned that this would be an obstacle to deploying MIPv6: I couldn't put my node to network X because X will not get AAA within five years. => don't forget you still can use a bidirectional tunnel with your home agent, so this is a constraint for the standard mode of MIPv6, not the anti-optimized but optionaly really secure mode ((secure) bidir tunnel). We have already some problems with the (route) optimized mode, I believe we shouldn't like to lost standard mode too.
Uh... there are legitimate uses for accounting and AAA but I really don't think we should impose configuration and AAA in all situations. There's plenty of examples where there is no business or security need for complicated configuration or even accounting. Such as closed company => there should be no security issue in a closed company or free university networks, => there is a problem for them but I don't believe this is very different than for the Internet access. A balance between the freedom and the responsability in case of problems has to be found. or my access-paid-by-visa WLAN. => I believe this is not a WLAN but a network of WLANs (i.e. a WWAN made with WLANs). In this case the problem is very easy to use, even statically (i.e. with a home address bound to the VISA account). Of course I expect the mobile support will be in the offered service list, something we all like to get but perhaps is not understood by operators... 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
