From nemo-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 03 05:06:04 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxKNV-00033n-Cm; Mon, 03 Jul 2006 05:06:01 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxKNU-00033R-44 for nemo@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Jul 2006 05:06:00 -0400 Received: from smtp0.netlab.nec.de ([195.37.70.40]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxKNS-00068T-MM for nemo@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Jul 2006 05:06:00 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp0.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAFD020031DE; Mon, 3 Jul 2006 11:06:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp0.netlab.nec.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (atlas1.office [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 19029-07; Mon, 3 Jul 2006 11:06:19 +0200 (CEST) Received: from venus.office (europa.netlab.nec.de [10.1.1.25]) by smtp0.netlab.nec.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E28520031DD; Mon, 3 Jul 2006 11:06:19 +0200 (CEST) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [nemo] Deployment Requirements Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 11:05:54 +0200 Message-ID: <6D28EBC684A4D94096217AD2FE40087389B57A@venus.office> In-Reply-To: <20060601181742.6e2252e5.thierry.ernst@inria.fr> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [nemo] Deployment Requirements Thread-Index: AcaFl84ab3SAk+pVQCuLwxouxahsbwY5I+bg From: "Roberto Baldessari" To: "Thierry Ernst" , X-Virus-Scanned: Amavisd on Debian GNU/Linux (atlas1.office) X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b5d20af10c334b36874c0264b10f59f1 Cc: X-BeenThere: nemo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: NEMO Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: nemo-bounces@ietf.org Dear Thierry, dear all, Unfortunately we can't provide you an input in time for the coming IETF in Montreal. The background of that is that C2CCC's work on a architecture description document to be published soon is behind the schedules. When this official document will be available (hopefully for the next IETF) or at least in a stable status, I'd be glad to provide you the document and give you an overview of the C2CCC activities.=20 Kind regards, Roberto > -----Original Message----- > From: Thierry Ernst [mailto:thierry.ernst@inria.fr]=20 > Sent: Thursday, June 01, 2006 6:18 PM > To: nemo@ietf.org > Cc: Roberto Baldessari > Subject: Re: [nemo] Deployment Requirements >=20 >=20 > Dear Roberto, >=20 > Thank you for this very useful feedback. I'm glad to hear=20 > that people from the C2C are monitoring this list. What we=20 > would expect from an organization such as C2C is a list of=20 > requirements sent to the NEMO WG as an input. Of course, the=20 > list of requirements may probably cover other IETF WGs, so it=20 > would serve as an input to the entire Internet Areaf of the=20 > IETF. Of course, if there are specific NEMO requirements,=20 > this would be even better, but I suspect that real deployment=20 > will require work not only in the NEMO WG. >=20 > Ideally, we would receive similar input from other=20 > groups/organizations working on IPv6 communications for=20 > intelligent systems transportations (e.g. ISO, CVIS) >=20 > Then, with we could discuss this list on this mailing list,=20 > and check with the aviation industry and other industries=20 > what are the commonalities. >=20 > If we receive input by the next IETF (in the form of a=20 > internet-draft would be nice, but is not mandatory), we could=20 > have this topic discussed at length during our NEMO slot. >=20 > Thierry. >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:20:47 +0200 > "Roberto Baldessari" wrote: >=20 > > Hi, > >=20 > > >=20 > > > [Pascal] MRs own Mobile Networks. As MRs form a nested NEMO=20 > > > dynamically, don't they form a MANET of Mobile Networks? > > > > >=20 > > [Roberto] In my opinion, MRs forming a nested NEMO=20 > dynamically is not=20 > > necessary in every kind of scenario, at least not in the one I'm=20 > > talking about. > > Anyway, we will reconsider TD carefully and contact you offline to=20 > > understand whether it applies to intervehicle scenario of C2C=20 > > Consortium. > >=20 > > For the WG, according to your interest we will keep you=20 > informed about=20 > > C2C activities. > > A first pubblication will be released by the consortium=20 > within a few=20 > > months. > > >From NEC side, we are also considering to formalize scenarios and > > requirements in a draft (but no time schedule yet...). > >=20 > > Regards > >=20 > > Roberto > >=20 > >=20 >=20 >=20 > -- > Thierry ERNST, PhD > INRIA Rocquencourt Project-Team IMARA > +33 1 39 63 59 30 >=20 >=20 From affiliates@01com.com Mon Jul 03 16:35:29 2006 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxV8j-0006d7-VJ for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Jul 2006 16:35:29 -0400 Received: from [88.241.71.203] (helo=mxs.mail.ru) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxV8h-0005k6-FG for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Jul 2006 16:35:29 -0400 Message-ID: <662161c80604ga1ny9hdi39pkva8667qihielelftjdwelh@database.01com.com> Date: Tue, 4 Jul 2006 20:48:37 -0120 From: "Clark Dove" To: nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: Your cash, nerve-celled MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline X-Spam: Not detected X-Spam-Score: 2.7 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Even if you have no erectin problems SOFT CIAzLIS would help you to make BETTER SE X MORE OFTEN! and to bring unimagnable plesure to her. Just disolve half a pil under your tongue and get ready for action in 15 minutes. The tests showed that the majority of men after taking this medic ation were able to have PERFECT ER ECTI ON during 36 hours! VISIT US, AND GET OUR SPECIAL 70% DISC OUNT OFER! http://hgujrs.hiderode.com/?83965193 ========== situated on the surface of our planet as though someone had taken six shots doing it for the greenbacks? You so and so, I thought to myself, what do you the reason you fly is to eat." and ready to fall apart. There was the cover on the ground, just like on Jonathan circled slowly over the Far Cliffs, watching. This rough "Family?" miles per hour. They dropped with him, streaking down in flawless months! What are you harassing an honest lab worker for? From nemo-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 10 11:06:18 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FzxKz-0007SE-2x; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:06:17 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FzxKx-0007S0-Vp for nemo@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:06:15 -0400 Received: from motgate3.mot.com ([144.189.100.103]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FzxKw-0003ur-Kq for nemo@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 11:06:15 -0400 Received: from az33exr01.mot.com (az33exr01.mot.com [10.64.251.231]) by motgate3.mot.com (8.12.11/Motgate3) with ESMTP id k6AF69Xw023255; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 08:06:14 -0700 (MST) Received: from [10.129.41.74] ([10.129.41.74]) by az33exr01.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k6AF66O0017833; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 10:06:07 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <44B26CDA.6070605@motorola.com> Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:06:02 +0200 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Thierry Ernst Subject: Re: [nemo] NEMO Meeting References: <20060620152304.29a7a21e.thierry.ernst@inria.fr> In-Reply-To: <20060620152304.29a7a21e.thierry.ernst@inria.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAQ= X-White-List-Member: TRUE X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d Cc: ml-nemo , tj X-BeenThere: nemo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: NEMO Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: nemo-bounces@ietf.org Thierry Ernst wrote: > Dear all, > > The NEMO WG meeting is scheduled on >> TUESDAY, July 11, 2006 >> 1850-1950 Afternoon Session IV >> Room 513C-F INT nemo Network Mobility WG > > As you can see, we only requested 1 hour this time. Requests will be > allocated based on WG priorities and interest shown on the ML. > > If you want to get some time, please do so and provide: > 1. Title > 2. Speaker > 3. Expected Time, Q&A included > 4. related draft or ML discussion topics Hi Thierry, I would like to ask for a 5 minutes slot: Title: "NEMOv4 base protocol" Speaker: myself Time: 5 minutes, QA included. Draft: draft-ietf-nemo-v4-base-01 http://tinyurl.com/jk657 Thanks, Alex From nemo-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 10 15:02:53 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G011w-00029C-Ry; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:02:52 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G011v-000297-RB for nemo@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:02:51 -0400 Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr ([192.93.2.78]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G011u-0000vc-F1 for nemo@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 15:02:51 -0400 Received: from iseran-2.local (h11b0-net84db.lab.risq.net [132.219.17.176] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k6AJ2ldR014091 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 21:02:49 +0200 Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 21:02:50 +0200 From: Thierry Ernst To: ml-nemo Message-Id: <20060710210250.5335ed85.thierry.ernst@inria.fr> Organization: INRIA X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.12 (GTK+ 1.2.10; powerpc-apple-darwin7.8.0) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 44B2A457.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: c1c65599517f9ac32519d043c37c5336 Subject: [nemo] Agenda for NEMO WG meeting X-BeenThere: nemo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: NEMO Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: nemo-bounces@ietf.org Dear all, Please find below the draft for the NEMO WG meeting held on Tuesday PM 18.50-19.50 (1 hour slot). Our discussion will concentrate on the current status of the NEMO WG rechartering and deployment issues. Regarding this last topic, we do expect contribution in the form of a draft from folks in the automotive, aeronautic and telecom industries to express their concerns on what is needed to deploy RFC 3963, but in the meantime, it might be useful to get a better sense of the room from attendees, so 10mins have been allocated for that purpose at the end of the meeting. So, if you are planning to deploy products or services using RFC 3963 (NEMO Basic Support), here is a good opportunity for you to share your views. Chairs. Agenda for the NEMO WG meeting, IETF66 Montreal, Canada Tuesday, July 11 Chairs: TJ Kniveton & Thierry Ernst 1. Welcome, agenda bashing ....................................... 05 mins Chairs 2 WG documents status ............................................ 10 mins Chairs 2. Summary of Recent Discussions on the ML ....................... 10 mins Chairs 4. Rechartering Items ............................................ 25 mins Chairs Current version of new charter: http://www.mobilenetworks.org/nemo/charter2_2.txt 3. Deployment Issues to be considered ............................ 10 mins Open Mic The purpose of this slot is to give the opportunity to people who intend to deploy RFC 3963 (NEMO Basic Support) in their networks, products, or services to express the deployment concerns they came through, and on which the NEMO WG may be expected to work. From admanaggr@0800-horoscope.com Tue Jul 11 22:24:37 2006 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0UOz-0004j7-06 for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 22:24:37 -0400 Received: from stsc1260-eth-s1-s1p1-vip.va.neustar.com ([156.154.16.129] helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0UOy-0008DP-V1 for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 22:24:36 -0400 Received: from [62.139.139.6] (helo=mail.0451.com) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0UOx-0001y3-4m for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 22:24:36 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 00:23:08 +0480 From: "Rhonda Newton" X-Mailer: The Bat! (v2.00.5) CD5BF9353B3B7091 Reply-To: "Rhonda Newton" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <765105317.20060713002308@0800-horoscope.com> To: nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: 0T3 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 3.0 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 2870a44b67ee17965ce5ad0177e150f4 whatever I reach first. I'll apologize now. For example, Mr. Tender, if I "There is no other." right down the middle of the street. It had been ages since the last time so important to know just who these visitors were. It's not important to From nemo-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 13 23:27:34 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1EKx-0005Qb-UI; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 23:27:31 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1EKw-0005Os-9w for nemo@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 23:27:30 -0400 Received: from yskfw1.ysknet.co.jp ([210.169.255.3] helo=ksns.ks.ysknet.co.jp) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1EKu-00038W-Av for nemo@ietf.org; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 23:27:30 -0400 Received: (qmail 31299 invoked from network); 14 Jul 2006 12:27:23 +0900 Received: from (HELO MIP6-236) (@) by with SMTP; 14 Jul 2006 12:27:23 +0900 To: nemo@ietf.org Subject: Re: [nemo] MR received the HAAD Reply (R flag=0) From: "K.Kawaguchi" References: <200606151640.HJD39566.VHLJBBXU@ysknet.co.jp> <027f01c6907d$3ae7cf60$ce2da40a@china.huawei.com> <200606160936.FBJ81207.JHVLUBBX@ysknet.co.jp> <03b301c690f1$d78e8ec0$ce2da40a@china.huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <03b301c690f1$d78e8ec0$ce2da40a@china.huawei.com> Message-Id: <200607141227.HIF05260.BUJLXHVB@ysknet.co.jp> X-Mailer: Winbiff [Version 2.43 PL1] X-Accept-Language: ja,en Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:27:20 +0900 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 1449ead51a2ff026dcb23465f5379250 Cc: X-BeenThere: nemo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: NEMO Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: nemo-bounces@ietf.org Hi, I'm sorry for the passage of time. We open the test specification to the public and are requesting the review. http://www.ipv6ready.org/announcement/public_review20060621_nemo.html #20 NEMO-MR-2-2-1-1-040 - BU accepted (Status = 0 & R = OFF) #93 NEMO-MR-5-1-2-1-031 - Receiving HAAD-Reply(R = OFF by NEMO not suppoted & 1st = HA0 & 2nd = HA1) As for us, IPv6 Ready Logo Phase-2 NEMO will contain the test of this situation now. However, we haven't the conviction yet. The test point is that MR looks for HA by using HA-list acquired from HAADReply(Rflag=0). The following are figures where the test point was summarized. Is this test content right as the operation based on RFC3963?$B!!(BOr, is it an excessive demand? Topology -+-------+-------+------+----------- Home link | | | | HA0 HA1 | R | | | --+--------+-- Foreign Link | | MR >>>>>>>>>>>> MR * MR move to foreign link Message Chart HA0 HA1 MR R1 MR | | | | | | | | | | |>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>| 1. MR move to foreign link | | | | | | <-------------------- | 2. Binding Update | | | | (Hflag=1, Rflag=1, Lifetime>0) | | | | | | --------------------> | 3. Binding Acknowledgement | | | | (Status=0, Hflag=1, Rflag=0, Lifetime>0) | | | | | | <-------------------- | 4. Home Agent Address Discovery Request | | | | (Rflag=1) | | | | | | --------------------> | 5. Home Agent Address Discovery Reply | | | | (Rflag=0, Address=HA1, HA0) | | | | | | <-------------------- | 6. Binding Update | | | | (Hflag=1, Lifetime=0) | | | | | | --------------------> | 7. Binding Acknowledgement | | | | (Status=0, Hflag=1, Lifetime=0) | | | | | <---------------------------- | 8. Binding Update | | | | (Hflag=1, Rflag=1, Lifetime>0) | | | | | ----------------------------> | 9. Binding Acknowledgement | | | | (Status=0, Hflag=1, Rflag=1, Lifetime>0) | | | | Best regards --- Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI kawaguti@ysknet.co.jp "Re: [nemo] MR received the HAAD Reply (R flag=0)" "Andy Huang " wrote: > I wonder whether any HA can work as RFC3775-HA and RFC3963-HA at the same > time. > It seems that there are no constraints on this point. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "K.Kawaguchi" > To: ; > Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:36 AM > Subject: Re: [nemo] MR received the HAAD Reply (R flag=0) > > > > Hi, > > > > Do you mean to exclude the possibility that RFC3775-HA includes NEMO-HA > > in the HA List with (R) flag=0? I also think that RFC3775-HA should be > > excluded from NEMO Home Link. In$B!!(Ba word, all HA supports RFC3963. > > However, I was anxious about this possibility. Need not MR basically deal > > with this possibility? > > > > > > Best regards > > --- > > Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI kawaguti@ysknet.co.jp > > > > > > > > In message <027f01c6907d$3ae7cf60$ce2da40a@china.huawei.com> > > "Re: [nemo] MR received the HAAD Reply (R flag=0)" > > "Andy Huang " wrote: > > > >> According to RFC3963, it mean that there is no HA which can support MR on > >> the home link. > >> And I think it's useless for MR to get MIP-HA list from the DHAAD reply > >> when > >> R Flag in the packet is 0. > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "K.Kawaguchi" > >> To: > >> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 3:40 PM > >> Subject: [nemo] MR received the HAAD Reply (R flag=0) > >> > >> > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > I have a question about RFC3963 section 5.3, 7.2. > >> > > >> > The HAAD Reply indicates that the MR Support (R) Flag is 0 > >> > and the list of HA Addresses include many HAs. > >> > How to process the Mobile Prefix Registration when MR received > >> > the HAAD Reply. > >> > > >> > I assumed the following processing. > >> > Is there the correct one? Or, another one? > >> > > >> > 1. MR tries the Mobile Prefix Registration to HAs in order > >> > of list of HA Addresses. > >> > 2. Almost same as above 1. But MR skips the HA that sent the > >> > HAAD Reply. > >> > 3. MR send the HAAD Requiest again until finding NEMO-HA. > >> > 4. MR doesn't try the Mobile Prefix Registration. > >> > 5. In fact, there are no matter since this situation is avoided > >> > by the following some solution. > >> > eg, > >> > - MIP Home Link and NEMO Home Link should be separated. > >> > - If MIP Home Link and NEMO Home Link are the same link. > >> > - It should be configure to reply by NEMO-HA rather than by > >> > MIP-HA. > >> > (The HAAD Reply function of MIP-HA isn't enabled.) > >> > - Even if HA don't support MR, HA should support the RFC3963. > >> > (This MIP-HA supports the RFC3963. MIP-HA makes the (R) flag 1 > >> > and the list of HA Addresses except for MIP-HA.) > >> > > >> > > >> > Best regards > >> > --- > >> > Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI kawaguti@ysknet.co.jp > >> > > >> > Best regards > >> > --- > >> > Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI kawaguti@ysknet.co.jp > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > Best regards > > --- > > Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI kawaguti@ysknet.co.jp From komatsu@kamposv.kampo2002.net Fri Jul 14 03:45:56 2006 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1IN2-0007AH-Ru for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 03:45:56 -0400 Received: from [219.163.126.184] (helo=kamposv.kampo2002.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1IMy-0001t5-Bo for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 03:45:56 -0400 Received: (from komatsu@localhost) by kamposv.kampo2002.net (8.11.6p2/8.11.6) id k6E87RE02661; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:07:28 +0900 Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:07:28 +0900 Message-Id: <200607140807.k6E87RE02661@kamposv.kampo2002.net> To: nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: Message from eBay Member From: eBay-Mitglied gret Content-Type: text/html X-Spam-Score: 3.0 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: fca7d4b87f391aa4d413f865ce6efe79

eBay sent this message.
Your registered name is included to show this message originated from eBay. Learn more.
Question from eBay Member -- Respond Now eBay
eBay sent this message on behalf of an eBay member via My Messages. Responses sent using email will not reach the eBay member. Use the Respond Now button below to respond to this message.
 Question from gret
Activity with gret (last 90 days):
- I have bid on 0 items from gret
gret( 2)
Positive Feedback: 100%
Member Since: Oct-30-03
Location: CA, United States
Registered On: www.ebay.com
Hello,
I recently placed a bid on item#5669378843 being a wheelchair for me that i really need do to my age(87 years old) and it seems that i can not find the auction anymore...May i please know if you are the seller of the item above?
Regards,
Greta
Respond to this question in My Messages.
Respond Now
Thank you for using eBay!
http://www.ebay.com/
Marketplace Safety Tip Marketplace Safety Tip
Do not respond to the sender (through the eBay system or your email provider) if this message is an offer to buy or sell an item. This type of offer is against eBay policy, may be fraudulent, and is not covered by buyer protection programs.

Second Chance Offer emails with the subject of “Message from eBay Member” are fake. Real Second Chance Offers come directly from eBay and appear in My Messages with a blue background and subject stating, “eBay Second Chance Offer for Item...".

Never pay for your eBay item using instant cash wire transfer services through  Western Union or MoneyGram. These payment methods are unsafe when paying someone you don’t know.

Learn more about sending payments.
Is this email inappropriate? Does it violate eBay policy? Help protect the community by reporting it.
Learn how you can protect yourself from spoof (fake) emails at:
http://pages.ebay.com/education/spooftutorial
This eBay notice was sent to you on behalf of another eBay member through the eBay platform and in accordance with our Privacy Policy. If you would like to receive this email in text format, change your notification preferences.
See our Privacy Policy and User Agreement if you have questions about eBay's communication policies.
Privacy Policy: http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/privacy-policy.html
User Agreement: http://pages.ebay.com/help/policies/user-agreement.html
Copyright © 2006 eBay, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners.
eBay and the eBay logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of eBay, Inc.
eBay is located at 2145 Hamilton Avenue, San Jose, CA 95125.

From nemo-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 17 20:07:14 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G2d7D-0004SU-NK; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:07:07 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G2d7C-0004SP-Pw for nemo@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:07:06 -0400 Received: from mail1.azairenet.com ([66.92.223.4] helo=bart.corp.azairenet.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G2d7B-00047W-Vo for nemo@ietf.org; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 20:07:06 -0400 Received: from [10.1.201.20] ([10.1.201.20]) by bart.corp.azairenet.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:07:02 -0700 Message-ID: <44BC2626.4060103@azairenet.com> Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 17:07:02 -0700 From: Vijay Devarapalli User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "K.Kawaguchi" Subject: Re: [nemo] MR received the HAAD Reply (R flag=0) References: <200606151640.HJD39566.VHLJBBXU@ysknet.co.jp> <027f01c6907d$3ae7cf60$ce2da40a@china.huawei.com> <200606160936.FBJ81207.JHVLUBBX@ysknet.co.jp> <03b301c690f1$d78e8ec0$ce2da40a@china.huawei.com> <200607141227.HIF05260.BUJLXHVB@ysknet.co.jp> In-Reply-To: <200607141227.HIF05260.BUJLXHVB@ysknet.co.jp> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-2022-JP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jul 2006 00:07:02.0726 (UTC) FILETIME=[18AA9E60:01C6A9FE] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 202a3ece0492a8c7e7c8672d5214398f Cc: nemo@ietf.org X-BeenThere: nemo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: NEMO Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: nemo-bounces@ietf.org let me see if I understand this right. you have two home agents on the home link one of which supports mobile routers and the other does not. K.Kawaguchi wrote: > HA0 HA1 MR R1 MR > | | | | > | | | | > | | |>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>| 1. MR move to foreign link > | | | | > | | <-------------------- | 2. Binding Update > | | | | (Hflag=1, Rflag=1, Lifetime>0) > | | | | > | | --------------------> | 3. Binding Acknowledgement > | | | | (Status=0, Hflag=1, Rflag=0, Lifetime>0) > | | | | > | | <-------------------- | 4. Home Agent Address Discovery Request > | | | | (Rflag=1) > | | | | > | | --------------------> | 5. Home Agent Address Discovery Reply > | | | | (Rflag=0, Address=HA1, HA0) even though the DHAAD reply is from HA1, the Rflag should be set to 1 since If a Home Agent receives a Dynamic Home Agent Discovery request message with the Mobile Router Support Flag set, it MUST reply with a list of Home Agents supporting Mobile Routers. The Mobile Router Support Flag MUST be set if there is at least one Home Agent supporting Mobile Routers. since there is at least one HA (HA0) that supports mobile routers on the same link, the Rflag should be set to 1. however this assumes that HA1 has support for mobile routers (implementation wise) but has the mobile router support currently turned off. RFC 3963 does not support the case where there is a MIP6 HA (which was never upgraded) and a NEMO HA on the same link and the DHAAD request comes to the MIP6 HA. the MIP6 HA would never have processed the R flag in the home agent information option in the router advertisement from the NEMO HA. we can try to fix this when 3963 is revised. in case the MR consistently gets a DHAAD reply with the Rflag set to 0, then it should assume that there are no HAs with mobile router support on the home link. your test case seems to want the mobile router to try each HA on the home link by sending a binding update with the Rflag set to 1. this was never the intention in the spec (but a mobile router could be configured to do this). hope this helps. Vijay > | | | | > | | <-------------------- | 6. Binding Update > | | | | (Hflag=1, Lifetime=0) > | | | | > | | --------------------> | 7. Binding Acknowledgement > | | | | (Status=0, Hflag=1, Lifetime=0) > | | | | > | <---------------------------- | 8. Binding Update > | | | | (Hflag=1, Rflag=1, Lifetime>0) > | | | | > | ----------------------------> | 9. Binding Acknowledgement > | | | | (Status=0, Hflag=1, Rflag=1, Lifetime>0) > | | | | > > > Best regards > --- > Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI kawaguti@ysknet.co.jp > > > > "Re: [nemo] MR received the HAAD Reply (R flag=0)" > "Andy Huang " wrote: > >> I wonder whether any HA can work as RFC3775-HA and RFC3963-HA at the same >> time. >> It seems that there are no constraints on this point. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "K.Kawaguchi" >> To: ; >> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:36 AM >> Subject: Re: [nemo] MR received the HAAD Reply (R flag=0) >> >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Do you mean to exclude the possibility that RFC3775-HA includes NEMO-HA >>> in the HA List with (R) flag=0? I also think that RFC3775-HA should be >>> excluded from NEMO Home Link. In$B!!(Ba word, all HA supports RFC3963. >>> However, I was anxious about this possibility. Need not MR basically deal >>> with this possibility? >>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> --- >>> Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI kawaguti@ysknet.co.jp >>> >>> >>> >>> In message <027f01c6907d$3ae7cf60$ce2da40a@china.huawei.com> >>> "Re: [nemo] MR received the HAAD Reply (R flag=0)" >>> "Andy Huang " wrote: >>> >>>> According to RFC3963, it mean that there is no HA which can support MR on >>>> the home link. >>>> And I think it's useless for MR to get MIP-HA list from the DHAAD reply >>>> when >>>> R Flag in the packet is 0. >>>> >>>> ----- Original Message ----- >>>> From: "K.Kawaguchi" >>>> To: >>>> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 3:40 PM >>>> Subject: [nemo] MR received the HAAD Reply (R flag=0) >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I have a question about RFC3963 section 5.3, 7.2. >>>>> >>>>> The HAAD Reply indicates that the MR Support (R) Flag is 0 >>>>> and the list of HA Addresses include many HAs. >>>>> How to process the Mobile Prefix Registration when MR received >>>>> the HAAD Reply. >>>>> >>>>> I assumed the following processing. >>>>> Is there the correct one? Or, another one? >>>>> >>>>> 1. MR tries the Mobile Prefix Registration to HAs in order >>>>> of list of HA Addresses. >>>>> 2. Almost same as above 1. But MR skips the HA that sent the >>>>> HAAD Reply. >>>>> 3. MR send the HAAD Requiest again until finding NEMO-HA. >>>>> 4. MR doesn't try the Mobile Prefix Registration. >>>>> 5. In fact, there are no matter since this situation is avoided >>>>> by the following some solution. >>>>> eg, >>>>> - MIP Home Link and NEMO Home Link should be separated. >>>>> - If MIP Home Link and NEMO Home Link are the same link. >>>>> - It should be configure to reply by NEMO-HA rather than by >>>>> MIP-HA. >>>>> (The HAAD Reply function of MIP-HA isn't enabled.) >>>>> - Even if HA don't support MR, HA should support the RFC3963. >>>>> (This MIP-HA supports the RFC3963. MIP-HA makes the (R) flag 1 >>>>> and the list of HA Addresses except for MIP-HA.) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> --- >>>>> Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI kawaguti@ysknet.co.jp >>>>> >>>>> Best regards >>>>> --- >>>>> Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI kawaguti@ysknet.co.jp >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Best regards >>> --- >>> Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI kawaguti@ysknet.co.jp > > From nemo-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 18 02:14:12 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G2iqO-0004ZS-UX; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 02:14:08 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G2iqN-0004YY-Gm for nemo@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 02:14:07 -0400 Received: from yskfw1.ysknet.co.jp ([210.169.255.3] helo=ksns.ks.ysknet.co.jp) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G2iqM-0002Yf-HF for nemo@ietf.org; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 02:14:07 -0400 Received: (qmail 19682 invoked from network); 18 Jul 2006 15:07:23 +0900 Received: from (HELO MIP6-236) (@) by with SMTP; 18 Jul 2006 15:07:23 +0900 To: vijay.devarapalli@azairenet.com Subject: Re: [nemo] MR received the HAAD Reply (R flag=0) From: "K.Kawaguchi" References: <027f01c6907d$3ae7cf60$ce2da40a@china.huawei.com><200606160936.FBJ81207.JHVLUBBX@ysknet.co.jp><03b301c690f1$d78e8ec0$ce2da40a@china.huawei.com><200607141227.HIF05260.BUJLXHVB@ysknet.co.jp><44BC2626.4060103@azairenet.com> In-Reply-To: <44BC2626.4060103@azairenet.com> Message-Id: <200607181507.DHI43216.BXVUBHJL@ysknet.co.jp> X-Mailer: Winbiff [Version 2.43 PL1] X-Accept-Language: ja,en Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 15:07:20 +0900 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 16c9da4896bf5539ae3547c6c25f06a0 Cc: nemo@ietf.org X-BeenThere: nemo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: NEMO Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: nemo-bounces@ietf.org "Re: [nemo] MR received the HAAD Reply (R flag=0)" "Vijay Devarapalli " wrote: > let me see if I understand this right. you have two > home agents on the home link one of which supports > mobile routers and the other does not. > > K.Kawaguchi wrote: > > HA0 HA1 MR R1 MR > > | | | | > > | | | | > > | | |>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>| 1. MR move to foreign link > > | | | | > > | | <-------------------- | 2. Binding Update > > | | | | (Hflag=1, Rflag=1, Lifetime>0) > > | | | | > > | | --------------------> | 3. Binding Acknowledgement > > | | | | (Status=0, Hflag=1, Rflag=0, Lifetime>0) > > | | | | > > | | <-------------------- | 4. Home Agent Address Discovery Request > > | | | | (Rflag=1) > > | | | | > > | | --------------------> | 5. Home Agent Address Discovery Reply > > | | | | (Rflag=0, Address=HA1, HA0) > > even though the DHAAD reply is from HA1, the Rflag > should be set to 1 since > > If a Home Agent receives a > Dynamic Home Agent Discovery request message with the Mobile Router > Support Flag set, it MUST reply with a list of Home Agents supporting > Mobile Routers. The Mobile Router Support Flag MUST be set if there > is at least one Home Agent supporting Mobile Routers. > > since there is at least one HA (HA0) that supports > mobile routers on the same link, the Rflag should be > set to 1. > > however this assumes that HA1 has support for mobile > routers (implementation wise) but has the mobile router > support currently turned off. Yes, I understand if HA1 supports RFC3963. > RFC 3963 does not support the case where there is a > MIP6 HA (which was never upgraded) and a NEMO HA on the > same link and the DHAAD request comes to the MIP6 HA. > the MIP6 HA would never have processed the R flag in > the home agent information option in the router > advertisement from the NEMO HA. we can try to fix > this when 3963 is revised. > > in case the MR consistently gets a DHAAD reply with > the Rflag set to 0, then it should assume that there > are no HAs with mobile router support on the home > link. your test case seems to want the mobile router > to try each HA on the home link by sending a binding > update with the Rflag set to 1. this was never the > intention in the spec (but a mobile router could be > configured to do this). > > hope this helps. I consented. The content of this test is outside the specification of RFC3963. We will remove the situation in which MIPv6-HA (which was never upgraded) appears now. Best regards --- Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI kawaguti@ysknet.co.jp > > Vijay > > > | | | | > > | | <-------------------- | 6. Binding Update > > | | | | (Hflag=1, Lifetime=0) > > | | | | > > | | --------------------> | 7. Binding Acknowledgement > > | | | | (Status=0, Hflag=1, Lifetime=0) > > | | | | > > | <---------------------------- | 8. Binding Update > > | | | | (Hflag=1, Rflag=1, Lifetime>0) > > | | | | > > | ----------------------------> | 9. Binding Acknowledgement > > | | | | (Status=0, Hflag=1, Rflag=1, Lifetime>0) > > | | | | > > > > > > Best regards > > --- > > Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI kawaguti@ysknet.co.jp > > > > > > > > "Re: [nemo] MR received the HAAD Reply (R flag=0)" > > "Andy Huang " wrote: > > > >> I wonder whether any HA can work as RFC3775-HA and RFC3963-HA at the same > >> time. > >> It seems that there are no constraints on this point. > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "K.Kawaguchi" > >> To: ; > >> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 8:36 AM > >> Subject: Re: [nemo] MR received the HAAD Reply (R flag=0) > >> > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> Do you mean to exclude the possibility that RFC3775-HA includes NEMO-HA > >>> in the HA List with (R) flag=0? I also think that RFC3775-HA should be > >>> excluded from NEMO Home Link. In$B!!(Ba word, all HA supports RFC3963. > >>> However, I was anxious about this possibility. Need not MR basically deal > >>> with this possibility? > >>> > >>> > >>> Best regards > >>> --- > >>> Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI kawaguti@ysknet.co.jp > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> In message <027f01c6907d$3ae7cf60$ce2da40a@china.huawei.com> > >>> "Re: [nemo] MR received the HAAD Reply (R flag=0)" > >>> "Andy Huang " wrote: > >>> > >>>> According to RFC3963, it mean that there is no HA which can support MR on > >>>> the home link. > >>>> And I think it's useless for MR to get MIP-HA list from the DHAAD reply > >>>> when > >>>> R Flag in the packet is 0. > >>>> > >>>> ----- Original Message ----- > >>>> From: "K.Kawaguchi" > >>>> To: > >>>> Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 3:40 PM > >>>> Subject: [nemo] MR received the HAAD Reply (R flag=0) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> I have a question about RFC3963 section 5.3, 7.2. > >>>>> > >>>>> The HAAD Reply indicates that the MR Support (R) Flag is 0 > >>>>> and the list of HA Addresses include many HAs. > >>>>> How to process the Mobile Prefix Registration when MR received > >>>>> the HAAD Reply. > >>>>> > >>>>> I assumed the following processing. > >>>>> Is there the correct one? Or, another one? > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. MR tries the Mobile Prefix Registration to HAs in order > >>>>> of list of HA Addresses. > >>>>> 2. Almost same as above 1. But MR skips the HA that sent the > >>>>> HAAD Reply. > >>>>> 3. MR send the HAAD Requiest again until finding NEMO-HA. > >>>>> 4. MR doesn't try the Mobile Prefix Registration. > >>>>> 5. In fact, there are no matter since this situation is avoided > >>>>> by the following some solution. > >>>>> eg, > >>>>> - MIP Home Link and NEMO Home Link should be separated. > >>>>> - If MIP Home Link and NEMO Home Link are the same link. > >>>>> - It should be configure to reply by NEMO-HA rather than by > >>>>> MIP-HA. > >>>>> (The HAAD Reply function of MIP-HA isn't enabled.) > >>>>> - Even if HA don't support MR, HA should support the RFC3963. > >>>>> (This MIP-HA supports the RFC3963. MIP-HA makes the (R) flag 1 > >>>>> and the list of HA Addresses except for MIP-HA.) > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Best regards > >>>>> --- > >>>>> Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI kawaguti@ysknet.co.jp > >>>>> > >>>>> Best regards > >>>>> --- > >>>>> Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI kawaguti@ysknet.co.jp > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> Best regards > >>> --- > >>> Kiyoaki KAWAGUCHI kawaguti@ysknet.co.jp > > > > > > > From nemo-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 24 05:50:11 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G4x4c-0002jM-Ac; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 05:50:02 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G4x4a-0002fd-VE for nemo@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 05:50:00 -0400 Received: from motgate5.mot.com ([144.189.100.105]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G4x4Z-0000k4-Gq for nemo@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 05:50:00 -0400 Received: from az33exr01.mot.com (az33exr01.mot.com [10.64.251.231]) by motgate5.mot.com (8.12.11/Motorola) with ESMTP id k6O9nwFd015879 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 02:49:58 -0700 (MST) Received: from [10.161.201.117] (zfr01-2117.crm.mot.com [10.161.201.117]) by az33exr01.mot.com (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id k6O9musi025129 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 04:48:57 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <44C49787.7020709@motorola.com> Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:48:55 +0200 From: Alexandru Petrescu User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ml-nemo WG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAQ= X-White-List-Member: TRUE X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d17f825e43c9aed4fd65b7edddddec89 Subject: [nemo] Moving Networks at Montreal Social? X-BeenThere: nemo@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: NEMO Working Group List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: nemo-bounces@ietf.org It seems that the boat where the Social Event in Montreal was run was giving Internet access to users. This was mentioned during the administrative Plenary session. I wonder if anybody used this as a client at the Social event? I wasn't there unfortunately due to not enough tickets. Thanks, Alex From sb@cmdc.us Fri Jul 28 17:47:06 2006 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6aAk-0000BK-Pv for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:47:06 -0400 Received: from mail.cmdc.us ([65.67.195.130] helo=cmdc.us) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6aAi-0007t1-4m for nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:47:06 -0400 Received: by cmdc.us (Postfix, from userid 1050) id 0D4AD12A64CB; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:47:00 -0500 (CDT) To: nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org Subject: Critical Information Regarding Your Credit Card Message-ID: <1154123220.49120.qmail@paypal.com> From: "service-chase " Content-Type: text/html Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:47:00 -0500 (CDT) X-Spam-Score: 3.8 (+++) X-Scan-Signature: 8eeb555810cda1f2c5989480370dc4ca PayPal
PayPal July 2006



Dear user of PayPal services,

    This email is to inform that you have successfuly added a new email in your PayPal account and deleted the old one.If you whant to add more emails or to delete one just login in your PayPal account. All PayPal accounts will come with complete detailed information!

Secure Server

If you are agree to keep the curent settings login to your PayPal account!
If you are not agree with this settings you can cancel the changes in your account. !!

 Your Account
Tips to Protect Your Account
PayPal's world class fraud investigators share 5 important actions you can take to help prevent identity theft and protect your account.


Update Your Profile
If you've closed a credit card or bank account recently, remember to go to PayPal's website to update your profile.




 Identity Protection Highlights



New spoof tutorial
Learn how to spot and avoid fraudulent "spoof" emails and websites with PayPal's handy 5-step spoof tutorial.


Protect yourself with tools
Guard yourself against "spoof" emails with the SafetyBar, and against fraudulent websites with the eBay Toolbar.






Checklist if you are a victim...
When you suspect a problem with your identity, you have to act fast. Use PayPal's checklist for what you should do.

 Merchant Offers

   
FREE Norton AntiSpam download with purchase of Norton AntiVirus. Unlimited listening and downloading. All the music you want. FREE trial. Learn about and fund locally run social and environmental projects.
Thank You for using PayPal!
This notification was sent to you by PayPal. To modify your notification preferences, log in to your PayPal account, click the Profile sub-tab, then click the Notifications link under Account Information. Changes may take up to 10 days to be reflected in our mailings. PayPal will not sell or rent any of your personally identifiable information to third parties. For more information about the security of your information, read our Privacy Policy at https://www.paypal.com/privacy.


Copyright © 2006 PayPal Inc. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks and brands are the property of their respective owners. PayPal is located at 2211 N. First St., San Jose, CA 95131.