RE: Authorization for delivering HA info to a MN

 > > => Not at all. 
 > 
 > I thought you were referring to specific mechanism described in
 > dhc-jang....
 > 
 > > I'm suggesting that you can use AAA
 > > for authenticating the MN to the MAP/HA without
 > > having to invent a new "local HA". 
 > 
 > Sorry I still don't get it. If you have a "MAP" in an access network,
 > you wouldn't need a separate "HA" that can be discovered by 
 > the MNs and
 > used for local Mobile IPv6 service. Yes, I agree (again, if 
 > this is what
 > you are saying).

=> In the draft you make assumptions that it is restricted
to what you called a local HA. What I'm saying is 
that a local HA _is_ a MAP. So, does the draft make a 
distinction between the two? If so, what is it? If not,
then why not call it a MAP or HA/MAP?

I hope this is clearer.

Hesham

 > 
 > > It's the same
 > > kind of authorisation and authentication and I
 > > don't see why it's different. But since you brought
 > > up a different topic I'll add my two cents below ;)
 > > 
 > >    Performing such configuration via RA is debatable,
 > >  > whereas this is a perfect fit for dynamic host configuration
 > >  > protocol.
 > > 
 > > => Ok, why is it debatable? the MIP6 spec already
 > > allows it when MNs are on their home links.
 > > Anyway, this is a side issue.
 > 
 > Since this apparently is not the issue, I'll save this 
 > potential rathole
 > for later ;-)
 > 
 > Alper
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > > 
 > > Hesham
 > > 
 > > 
 > > ===========================================================
 > > This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the
 > sole
 > > use
 > >  of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by 
 > others is
 > > strictly
 > >  prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient please 
 > contact the
 > > sender
 > >  and delete all copies.
 > > ===========================================================
 > 
 > 
 >