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

[Scott Brim]

On 10/17/2010 06:38 PDT, 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.

I've heard a forecast of 2013.  I think it will be sooner.  Please
include "M2M" devices such as sensors and vending machines that are
connected via the cellular network because it's easier to do mass
deployments that way.

On 10/17/2010 08:18 PDT, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> And we certainly don't know what technology will enable.  

Not only is the future stranger than you imagine, it is stranger than
you _can_ imagine :-)

> We have several mobile devices (calling them "telephones" is as silly as
> talking about "dialing") 

I like "mobiles" as in "Internet mobiles".

On 10/17/2010 11:04 PDT, 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.

See several drafts and RFCs, including
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-brim-mobility-and-privacy>, for
concerns about using public mapping systems like DNS to allow mobility.

On 10/17/2010 12:43 PDT, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> 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.

When multiple carriers are involved, why does the hand-off have to be at
(so-called) link-level?

Thanks ... Scott