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

[Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>]

on 2004-11-19 5:34 pm Soliman, Hesham said the following:
>  > > => 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. 

In that case, sure.  Then dynamic address assignment makes
sense; you're only using a certain subset of the functionality
provided by MIP which doesn't require the global reachability
it otherwise provides.

	Henrik