[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: IPSEC tunnels and Mobile IP
On Fri, 27 Feb 1998, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> At 03:28 PM 2/26/98 -0000, Stephen Waters wrote:
> >
> >Does IPSEC tunnel mean I can forget about Mobile IP?
>
> IMNSHO, Mobile IP is for mobile units. ie cars, tanks, soldiers, and
> pedestrians. A notebook I plug into a phone jack in a hotel, car dealer,
> or conference LAN does not need Mobile IP, only IPsec.
>
I once again don't understand this. To me the difference between
a mobil user and other uses of IP, as far as the protocols are concerned,
is that the mobile user is likely to have a different IP address from one
instance to the next, and is likely to be routed differently from one
instance to the next. In a public network, the two may often go together.
In a private network, including "tanks, soldiers, etc.", this may actually
not be the case as often. So it seems to me that tanks and soldiers
actually could conceivably look more like the non-mobile case as far
as the network protocols are concerned, at least more often than does the
salesman in his hotel room, unless the salesman always dials into the
same service point and always gets the same address.
It seems to me that the real challenge presented by mobile IP, and also
by many office LANS, is the dynamic IP address. Will the present
protocols accomodate dynamic IP and NFS on a multi-user host? Is there
a scalable key infrastructure that will accomodate this?
Regards,
Mitch Nelson
Follow-Ups: