Subject: Re: multi-interfaced vs multi-addressed [Re: [Mip6] Draft Agenda for WG meeting at IETF58]

From: Charlie Perkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 19:21:43 -0800

Hello Hesham,

Soliman Hesham wrote:

>Case 2: Two addresses on two different interfaces.
>Now, the MN may want to put some connections on i/f 1
>and others on i/f 2, why? because i/f 1 is cheap and free
>but doesn't provide QoS for instance so it's ok to put my 
>web browsing on that. On the other hand i/f 2 provides QoS
>(for a price) so I'll only use it for real time apps.
>
>Today MIPv6 does not allow case 2 to take place. Of course
>you could do the same with case 1 (i.e. just to be a pain
>the MN wants to use two CoAs assigned to the same interface) 
>but there is no benefit. The benefit is clearer when there 
>are two interfaces. 
>
How does Mobile IPv6 prevent case 2?

If I want my applications to bind to a case 2 address/socket,
why does Mobile IP get in the way?

Furthermore, I dispute your claim that case 1 has no benefit.
Clearly, it does when the addresses have separate DNS names.

Regards,
Charlie P.

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6