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

[Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>]

on 2004-11-19 5:00 pm Soliman, Hesham said the following:
> 
>  > 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.

Hmm - that you use dynamic address assignment indicates to me that
you don't expect the IP address to be usable as an end node
identifier; you don't expect people to be able to reach the mobile
nodes by DNS.  (Maybe a pity?)

As far as using mechanisms which are already specified, I see no
reason not to use them, and indeed the individual deployment
scenarios which may be relevant in this space will probably differ
greatly in this respect.

	Henrik