Subject: [mobile-ip] WG input on draft-ietf-dhc-mipadvert-opt-00.txt

From: gabriel montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2003 17:25:22 +0100

Our alert advising AD (Thomas) has called this draft
to our attention. It is an official work item of the
DHC WG, but would definitely benefit from Mobile IP
eyeballs reviewing it.

-gabriel

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2003 15:23:06 +0100

Gabriel,

	Thanks for asking for feedback on this. As author I'd
like to say that we have deployment scenarios where we need
this, and my main questions, in view of no responses at all
so far to the query, is this:

	- Is the draft so incredibly well written that there's no
room for improvement and thus no comments?!?!?! ,,:-)

	- Or are there no other MIPv4 deployers out there who's
seen the need for this yet?

	- Or are most people on the list currently concerned with
MIPv6, and thus simply skip this draft?

	Henrik

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 14:54:47 +0100

Thanks for the feedback, Björn.

Responses inline:

On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 09:56:48 +0200, Bjorn Andersson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27 2003, at 15:23:06 +0100, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
...
> I haven't seen a need for this, but I can guess what your particular case
> is. ;-) I think if you gave a description of your deployment scenario it
> would be easier to understand the benefit of this draft. Would the
> following alternative solution work so that you wouldn't have to involve
> DHCP:

We have two main deployment scenarios, one of which I'd rather not
talk too much about at this time; but the other one is based on an
expressed preference from some large ISPs of re-using the centrally
managed dhcp servers they already have, rather than having to set up
new management infrastructure, if at all possible. 

> - Make foreign agents not advertise their presence periodically 
> - Make the MNs solicit for FAs and only have the selected FA respond with a
>   unicast agent advertisement. You could add a MN NAI in the solicitation
>   for MN identification (and FA selection).
> 
> This way you could keep DHCP and MIP decoupled and the solution would
> work with MIP clients implementing unmodified MIP and DHCP.  Would there
> be any cons with this solution comparared to your suggestion?

Yes, this would solve the purely mechanical problem of selecting
different foreign agents based on user identity; but it would not
solve the expressed deployment preferences we've come across in
this case.

> All little off-topic with respect to the above discussion, but I would
> like to have two IETF mobile-ip lists: one for MIPv4 and one for MIPv6
> since the protocols are at two completely different maturity levels and
> probably have different audiences as well.

Yes, I quite agree!

		Henrik

-- 

Henrik Levkowetz +46708321608 [email-masked] www.ipunplugged.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Error message in Haiku form:

  No keyboard present
  Hit F1 to continue
  Zen engineering?

    -- Jim Griffith