RE: Revised agenda for: MIP4 - Mobility for IPv4 BOF

Hi Raj.  I do agree that the proper method for obtaining DNS servers
and other host configurations should be DHCP.

The deployment of IETF based Mobile IP out in the
industries such as IEEE WLAN, GPRS/3GPP, and 3GPP2 is
mutually beneficial.

I wanted to focus on figuring out if this is a 3GPP2 specific issue
or a general problem.

So let's go down the list.

For IEEE WLAN, DHCP is the answer.  For GPRS/3GPP, GGSN can send
DHCP/RADIUS request to the specific enterprise to retrieve the DNS server
address.  So typically, PPP/RADIUS and DHCP is sufficient.

But for 3GPP2, the problem is PPP/IPCP already completed and there may
not be DHCP available when MIP registration happens.  So any host configuration
has to come through MIP extensions.

Sorry, maybe it may have been obvious to others, but I didn't know going in 
that
this issue is specific to 3GPP2 only.  I think that's because there's 
really no DHCP
scheme that can be used today either.  Steve's draft is still work in progress.
Thus I was stuck thinking there's a generic issue for deployment.

I agree with your proposal. :)

Kent

At 04:27 AM 7/17/2003 -0500, [email protected] wrote:
>Kent,
>
>How much of customization of the Mobile IPv4 specs should be
>continued to be made simply because reality is non-conformant
>to the specs? So will adding this additional extension to the
>MIPv4 specs be the end of the line for such needs... I tend to
>think that this encourages more such extensions to be made in
>the future simply because there unwillingness to implement well
>understood and standardized mechanisms...
>I think we are doing things in the wrong order here. We see
>implementations that are taking the wrong approach or a shortcut
>to accomplishing something.... And then we come to the IETF and
>say this is reality and hence needs to be standardized... I
>just dont buy this argument...
>
>If you really think that there is no possibility of using well
>understood mechanisms for configuration, then I would propose that
>vendor specific extensions (MIPv4 RFC) be used for this purpose
>rather than standardizing some new extensions to the Reg_REQ and
>Reg_RESP messages.
>
>-Basavaraj