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

[Pete McCann <mccap@lucent.com>]

Henrik Levkowetz writes:
 > 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.

3GPP2 has defined behavior that updates the DNS record associated with
a particular NAI upon dynamic assignment of the home address.  This
can be triggered from the HA or the home AAA server.

-Pete

 > 	Henrik