Re: (mobile-ip) IPv4 and IPv6

Dave Johnson <dbj@cs.cmu.edu> Sun, 15 February 1998 18:06 UTC

Delivery-Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 13:06:46 -0500
Return-Path: owner-mobile-ip@smallworks.com
Received: from cnri.reston.va.us (cnri [132.151.1.1]) by ns.ietf.org (8.8.7/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id NAA07172 for <ietf-archive@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 13:06:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from hosaka.smallworks.com (hosaka.SmallWorks.COM [192.207.126.1]) by cnri.reston.va.us (8.8.5/8.8.7a) with ESMTP id NAA00570 for <ietf-archive@cnri.reston.va.us>; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 13:09:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by hosaka.smallworks.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id LAA09236 for mobile-ip-dist; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 11:10:25 -0600 (CST)
X-Authentication-Warning: hosaka.smallworks.com: majordomo set sender to owner-mobile-ip using -f
Received: from ux6.sp.cs.cmu.edu (UX6.SP.CS.CMU.EDU [128.2.181.250]) by hosaka.smallworks.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id LAA09228 for <mobile-ip@smallworks.com>; Sun, 15 Feb 1998 11:09:50 -0600 (CST)
Received: from localhost by ux6.sp.cs.cmu.edu id aa21883; 15 Feb 98 12:09 EST
To: Baher Esmat <bali@idsc.gov.eg>, Nicholas Albert Fikouras <m7naf@dcs.shef.ac.uk>
Cc: mobile-ip@smallworks.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 14 Feb 1998 22:54:43 +0200" <3.0.5.32.19980214225443.009177f0@idsc.gov.eg>
From: Dave Johnson <dbj@cs.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: (mobile-ip) IPv4 and IPv6
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 12:09:06 -0500
Message-ID: <21881.887562546@ux6.sp.cs.cmu.edu>
Sender: owner-mobile-ip@smallworks.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Dave Johnson <dbj@cs.cmu.edu>

Baher Esmat <bali@idsc.gov.eg> asked:

>Is there any document analyzing the differences between mobility support in
>IPv4 and IPv6????

To which Nicholas Albert Fikouras <m7naf@dcs.shef.ac.uk> replied:

>I think that the document you are looking for is:
>
>draft-teraoka-ipv6-mobility-sup-04.txt
>
>If anybody knows any up to date documents, please email them to me also.


No, the draft-teraoka document does not describe the IETF Mobile IP
protocol for either IPv4 or IPv6.  It is instead an early proposal of
how the "VIP" protocol proposed by Sony could be adapted to support
mobility in IPv6.  VIP was originally proposed for mobility in
IPv4.  Although VIP is interesting in some ways and its design has
had some influence on the IETF Mobile IP work, it was not adopted
by the IETF for mobility support in IPv4 and has not been adopted
for IPv6 either.

For the specific question you asked -- is there any document that
analyzes the differences between Mobile IPv4 and Mobile IPv6 -- the
answer is currently "no".  The best document is the current IETF
specification for Mobile IP in IPv6:

    draft-ietf-mobileip-ipv6-04.txt

A section in this document will contain a comparison between the
IPv4 and IPv6 protocols for Mobile IP, but I haven't written that
section yet (I'm working on it now, in fact).  For a description
of the IETF Mobile IP protocol for IPv4, the official specification
is in RFC 2002 (and the related RFCs 2003 through 2006).

					Dave
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF Mobile IP Working Group Mailing List - Archives:  software.watson.ibm.com
Unsubscribe:	unsubscribe mobile-ip		(as message body, not subject)
Direct all administrative requests to majordomo@smallworks.com