RE: Mobile IP and Mobike

Thanks James for bringing this up. I'm also curious about this.

> So nobody's come out and spoken directly to the issue, but there's
been
> lots
> of talk around the edges. Here's my interpretation of what the
interaction
> of Mobile IP and Mobike is.
> 
> >From the discussion on the list and at the meeting this week, it
sounds
> like
> Mobike and Mobile IP are separate and incompatible solutions to
mobility,
> with orthogonal deployment scenerios. They are incompatible because
> deploying them together on the same box would result in duplicate
"binding
> update" messages between the host and the tunnel endpoint (which is
the
> home
> agent in Mobile IP). From this, I deduce that having both in a host
stack
> at
> the same time is to be discouraged. 

So, my question is: can I use Mobike instead of Mobile IPv6 to achieve
the same level of IP-layer mobility management (except MIP6 route
optimization)? If not, what is the delta?

> Their deployment scenerios are
> orthogonal because Mobile IP is targetted at wireless network service
> providers and Mobike is targeted more at enterprise customers with
road
> warriors. 

I'm not sure what the protocol-level distinction is between the two
deployments in this context.

> There might be some overlap for cases such as UMA, which is
> using
> IPsec tunnels set up using IKEv2 over WLAN to tunnel gateways through
> which
> circuit-switched GSM voice traffic and GSM signaling is directed, in
> addition to GPRS traffic. The UMA gateways are presumably in a
wireless
> network operator's network.
> 
> Am I missing something? Is more detailed analysis necessary to confirm
> this
> admittedly superficial description? Fire away!

Alper



> 
>             jak
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mobike mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.machshav.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/mobike