[ih] IP addresses are not phone numbers, was Some Questions over IPv4 Ownership

[Miles Fidelman]

Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 10/17/2010 8:38 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>> Of course things change a bit as we worry about mobile IP. I sort of
>> wonder when about how soon we'll get to the point where mobile devices
>> outnumber fixed devices. Come to think about it, it's already the case
>> for both my household and business.
>
> Which is exactly the point I have been trying to raise--and had given 
> up on.
>
> We have several mobile devices (calling them "telephones" is as silly 
> as talking about "dialing") that have one or more IP addresses.  So 
> far we are surviving because they all use DHCP (and that might be the 
> answer if coupled with a much faster DNS--I think the route will be 
> via an advanced ARP).
DHCP isn't necessarily a bad solution - for devices that stand still 
when they're being used (e.g., laptops, under most conditions).  The 
notion of binding an IP address to physical infrastructure, and identity 
to a domain name, and using DNS to map things, seems to work pretty well.

Where it seems to be just a bit trickier is for devices that are moving 
while being used - smartphones, systems mounted in vehicles, and so 
forth.  And where things get particularly interesting is in the world of 
mesh networks, and particularly MANETs, where you don't have any carrier 
to "own" IP addresses.

Associating IP addresses with physical network assets, and "ownership" 
with the carriers who own those physical assets makes both logical and 
practical sense.  But when computers and network devices are merged, and 
there is no carrier, the question of who "owns" and administers IP 
addresses takes on a whole new flavor.

Miles Fidelman

-- 
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In<fnord>  practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra