Re: [Mip4] draft-ietf-dhc-mipadvert-opt-01.txt

Hi, Henrik,

Henrik Levkowetz writes:
 > > This might be a good way to, for example, configure an HA in the local
 > > network while roaming, but when you haven't deployed Mobile IP FAs,
 > > and you want to centralize the HAs on links other than the access
 > > links.
 > 
 > Not sure I see exactly what you mean here. Are you thinking in terms
 > of virtual home networks / never-at-home mobiles?

That's a possible use case but not the only one.  MNs wouldn't be
prevented from going home, it is just that when they initially attach
to the network and start a session, they may not be on the same link
as the one on which the operator has deployed HAs.  The HAs would be
in the same network (same administrative domain) but could be on
another link.  If that link does not provide access, then the MNs
would never go home.

 > > I assume this sort of functionality would be supported by the existing
 > > Mobile IP Home Agent option specified in RFC 2132.
 > 
 > Yes; if you only want to configure an HA the Home Agent option should
 > be sufficient. 

Ok.

 > I originally wrote a draft defining only an FA option, (as that's what
 > we needed) but as the numbers of fields grew, and I included almost all
 > of the regular advertisement fields, I thought I might just as well make
 > it general.

Yeah, that's the impression I got while reading it.

 > Also, as the number of available dhcp option codes are quite
 > limited, I thought I'd define this as a more general option with
 > sub-options so as to make room for possible future mobility-related
 > options without depleting the option space further.

Ok, but maybe the language describing the H bit (at least) should be
touched up a bit.

-Pete

-- 
Mip4 mailing list
Mip4@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4