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

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

 > > => 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?)

=> Maybe not ;) It really depends on what you're doing. 
First of all, using the DNS for reachability is a long and
possibly separate discussion. But regardless of outcome of that
discussion I think we can agree that if the address is 
assigned by a local agent in the visited network (local
HA or MAP) then you don't use it for reachability per se
(i.e. DNS). These addresses are assigned dynamically and 
are basically used for LMM. 

Hesham
 > 
 > 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
 > 

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