RE: comments on draft-larsson-v6ops-mip-scenarios-00.txt

["Soliman, Hesham" <H.Soliman@flarion.com>]

 > No, this I don't see.  There is one address assignment which we have
 > (consistently, I believe) not covered, which is getting a 
 > local address,
 > and this should be the same cost for all solutions.  In the Mip 4/6 
 > cases the Home address is already assigned and fixed, no need to 
 > do that on the fly - well, it's even (mostly) a silly idea in the
 > context of mobile ip [although there are provisions for 
 > dynamic address
 > assignment within at least MIP4 - don't know about MIP6 and I'm not
 > sure it's even a good idea to go there :-)]

=> In both of our drafts (DSMIPv4 and DSMIPv6) we use dynamic 
address assignment for both v4 and v6. The main reason for allowing
this is local mobility management using MIP. I don't really agree
with Pekka's original comment about the difficulty of doing this.
This dynamic address assignment mechanism is implemented and _used_
today in MIPv4. It is also documented in HMIPv6 and there is no
reason why we can't use it in DSMIP.

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.
===========================================================