Just a quick note.
Alper Yegin wrote: [much text cut]
To me, there are some common points, but there are also huge differences. I'm thinking about in NAT there is a specific set of types of addresses (the not publicly-routable) that can be reused by any site at will. However, with HMIPv6, the LCoAs must be globally unique.
That's right. This gives the option to use LCoA with a CN if MN wants to. So, location privacy is an optional feature for MN to use, unlike with the NATs. This is nice, because the MN might want to signal its location to some CNs for things like location-based services.
Actually, it is possible to use a site-local address for LCoA, if all outbound packets are forced to go through the MAP. Since there is a unique mapping for RCoA to the LCoA and tunneling of received globally addressed packets you don't get the application interference of NAT though.
Of course, this will only be possible if we still have site-locals, and may require some protocol tweaks on entering a MAP domain which only advertises site-locals.
I'm not going to recommend this as a solution though. I'm not flame proof.
Greg
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
