Hi Alper, Greg. I'm not flaming, and not try to generate any heat :-)
Greg Daley wrote:
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.
Actually, I think that MN can decide about its use
Alex,
So, an idea is that the location privacy might be a problem, and that
Mobile IPv6 might offer a site-local-free solution for that problem,
and that HMIPv6 needs site locals in order to provide a solution to
that problem.
This is not a correct conclusion. As I have explained earlier,
Alper, I tried to draw a logic conclusion from this:
-I assumed LCoA and RCoA have same last 64 bits
-I was countered that that is not absolutely necessary, and that rfc
3041 could be used.
-I replied: yes, could, but it is not.
-I was pointed that site-locals might be used too.
-so I concluded.
Alper Yegin wrote:
I don't quite understand this... All CN knows is the RCoA of the
MN. Only LCoA can reveal the location of the MN within the network.
And CN cannot figure out LCoA by looking at RCoA.
What's the difference between a RCoA and a LCoA of a same MN? In my
understanding only the
Hi Greg,
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
Alper Yegin wrote:
I don't quite understand this... All CN knows is the RCoA of the
MN. Only LCoA can reveal the location of the MN within the network.
And CN cannot figure out LCoA by looking at RCoA.
What's the difference between a RCoA and a LCoA of a same MN? In my
understanding
Hi Alper,
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
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
If IPv6 has a better anonymity solution, can someone point me
to it? Or do I have to start working on NATv6? (See, this is
why I don't always want to identify myself! :-)
See RFC 3041 - It does exactly what you want without the
drawbacks of NAT.
Actually not, if you
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
If IPv6 has a better anonymity solution, can someone point me
to it? Or do I have to start working on NATv6? (See, this is
why I don't always want to identify myself! :-)
See RFC 3041 - It does exactly what you want without the
drawbacks of
If IPv6 has a better anonymity solution, can someone point me
to it? Or do I have to start working on NATv6? (See, this is
why I don't always want to identify myself! :-)
See RFC 3041 - It does exactly what you want without the
drawbacks of NAT.
Actually not, if you have a domestic /48
Hi Alexandru,
A quick HMIPv6 comment below.
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
If IPv6 has a better anonymity solution, can someone point me to it?
Or do I have to start working on NATv6? (See, this is why I don't
always want to identify myself! :-)
See RFC 3041 - It does
Tony Hain wrote:
John Bartas wrote:
If IPv6 has a better anonymity solution, can someone
point me to it? Or do I have to start working on NATv6?
(See, this is why I don't always want to identify myself!
:-)
See RFC 3041 - It does exactly what you want without the drawbacks of
Pekka Savola wrote:
...
By the ISP? RFC3041 doesn't give you anything except a false
sense of anonomity and broken apps.
It provides anonomity for devices that appear on multiple networks. It
does not prevent an ISP from identifying the customer demarc. It does
not break apps that were not
John Bartas wrote:
We may not have to worry about it - NAT is now illegal
in 4 of the United States, and counting:
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-994667.html
I don't see anything in that article that applies to NAT's.
It's about copyrights not about IP addressing maybe that's
why I
We may not have to worry about it - NAT is now illegal in 4 of the
United States, and counting:
http://news.com.com/2100-1028-994667.html
One thing I have not seen addressed in this thread is anonymity. One
reason I wrote my first NAT in 1996 was because I can do things on the
net (like
Hi Alger,
This looks like a potential solution. I would not have thought of
looking into Mobile IPv6 for an anonymity service, but there it is.
Of course it's illegal in Michigan (;-), but for the rest of the world
it might be quite popular.
Thanks,
-JB-
Alper Yegin
Hi Jeroen,
Well, my main point was how to provide anonymity without forcing
users
to use NATv6.
But
Here's some other URLs which indicate that NAT is outlawed by
some of
this new legislation. What these laws proscribe, in general terms, is
any technology which hides the
John Bartas wrote:
If IPv6 has a better anonymity solution, can someone
point me to it? Or do I have to start working on NATv6?
(See, this is why I don't always want to identify myself!
:-)
See RFC 3041 - It does exactly what you want without the drawbacks of
NAT.
Tony
Hi John and Alper,
John Bartas wrote:
Hi Alger,
This looks like a potential solution. I would not have thought of
looking into Mobile IPv6 for an anonymity service, but there it is.
Of course it's illegal in Michigan (;-), but for the rest of the world
it might be quite popular.
On Mon, 31 Mar 2003, Tony Hain wrote:
John Bartas wrote:
If IPv6 has a better anonymity solution, can someone
point me to it? Or do I have to start working on NATv6?
(See, this is why I don't always want to identify myself!
:-)
See RFC 3041 - It does exactly what you want
20 matches
Mail list logo
