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

[Miles Fidelman]

Miles Fidelman wrote:
> 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.
I guess I should also add the case of roaming, where one wants to 
maintain TCP sessions while handing off link-level connectivity across 
assets owned by multiple carriers.

Miles

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