Re: NEMO and draft-tsirtsis-dsmip-problem-03

[Alexandru Petrescu <Alexandru.Petrescu@motorola.com>]

Soliman, Hesham wrote:
> > -offer Mobile IPv4 HA service in the operator network.
>
> => Several operators already have this.

None in Europe AFAIK, please correct me if I'm wrong, be it in private 
or not.

> > I'd call them IPv4 NAT addresses, and not Home Addresses, because a
> >  Mobile IPv4 Home Address offers session continuity across the 
> > entire Internet, which would suppose having a HA in the operator 
> > network and visible from the outside of that network.
>
> => You certainly have your own definitions :)

By definition :-)

> I called them home addresses. An HA may be administered to provide
> mobility only within a single admin domain. There is nothing in the
> HA definition that mandates that it works globally. Of course it can
> but admins can do whatever they want.

Yes, this again.  I think you're right on this.  IMHO, IMHO, this is a 
mismatch between what these admins needed and what they got.  If they 
needed a mobility solution within a small unique private domain, then no 
need of the permanent Mobile IP tunnel overheads (never at home) and the 
unoptimal paths it incurs.

> > > So we still need to allow the MR to register an IPv4 HoA.
> >
> > I don't understand why you call that DHCP-assigned 192. or 10. 
> > address an HoA?  An HoA MUST be reachable on the Internet.  Because
> >  of this, I don't think MR would register its own IPv4 address to 
> > anyone, but maybe its corresponding NAT public address and 
> > eventually a port number.
>
> => Point me to a spec that defines it this way and I'll agree with 
> you.

Ok, I don't have such a precise definition.  It's only in my head.  The 
only text that approaches this is:
  "Mobile IP scales to handle a large number of mobile nodes in the
   Internet." of the Applicability Statement RFC 2005.

Alex

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature