Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 14:27:58 -0500
From: "J. Noel Chiappa"
<jnc(_at_)ginger(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu>
Message-ID:
<200111121927(_dot_)OAA25478(_at_)ginger(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu>
| I'm a bit puzzled as to how you can agree that "the location and identity of
| the mobile node ... [has] been unlinked", but still argue that "the two
| concepts haven't been". This is some sort of very fine hair-shaving indeed.
I meant that if you consider a mobile node in isolation, it appears as if
its location and identity are unrelated.
However, to come up with an architecture which has separate concepts of
identity and location, there can't be any direct relationship between them
at all (other than mapping through some kind of database).
That isn't what mobile IP offers - the identity of a mobile node is
tightly coupled to the location of its home node (or if you like, the home
location of the mobile node). The two things just aren't separable.
Mobile IP neither is, nor pretends to be, any kind of demonstration of
a model with separate ID and location spaces.
kre