RE: [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel a MIP6/NEMO WGs document

["Carl Williams" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Sri,

  Looking at things from an operational or deployment perspective:

  One requirement that I believe is highly desirable is the ease of
deployment of a solution that enables Mobile IPv6 traversal in IPv4
networks.  Additional network infrastructure and/or a complicated
protocol will take us further from the base MIPv6 protocol - which
impacts the ease of deployment and possible acceptance. 

   It would be highly desirable for operators and users not to have a
requirement that their Mobile IPv6 service be dependent on a separate
transition service.  

  Finally, co-existence of Mobile IPv6 (a feature of IPv6:) with IPv4
networks is a mandate that we must adhere to ASAP; otherwise, there will
be little acceptance to advance Mobile IPv6 adoption/deployment  [just
think if we waited for the core IPv6 specifications to become RFCs
before working on v6ops stuff - where would will be with IPv6 deployment
today].  draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel-01 limits the scope to what I
believe is the minimum scenario and requires little protocol changes.
Let's keep in mind the operator's perspective in the debate. 

   Carl


-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of
Sri Gundavelli
Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 4:27 PM
To: Vijay Devarapalli
Cc: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID
draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel a MIP6/NEMO WGs document



Hi Vijay,

On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Vijay Devarapalli wrote:

> Sri,
>
> Sri Gundavelli wrote:
> > Hi Raj,
> >        In the last IETF nemo meeting, we raised some
> > issues on the approach chosen by this draft. We are
> > not convinced that the draft has explored and narrowed
> > down on the most common v4 traversal scenarios. The
> > basic assumption of the draft that the v6 Home Agent's
> > functionality is collapsed in to the transition gateway
> > is not valid and just addresses one scenario. The
> > requirement the draft imposes on having a V4 network
> > terminating on the v6 home agent is probably not
> > acceptible.
>
> if I understood you right, your concern is about how to make
> an IPv6 HA with an IPv4 interface accesible through the IPv4
> Internet. right?

The question is not about configuring a v4 address on the
interface of v6 home agent, it about the termination point
of the v4 network and the placement of a v6 home agent. You
cannot expect the v6 home agent and the transition gateway
service to be co-located. The point is that we should identify
the practical deployment sceanarios and go from there.

>
> > Also, the draft's claim that they are
> > avoiding one extra encap layer is not true, the moment
> > you move the transition gateway from the home agent,
> > indeed an extra encap layer is needed.
>
> we do want to keep it to just one level of encapsulation.
>

Other way to say is we would not an extra encap layer, when
the home agent and the transition gateway functions are spread
out.



> Vijay
>
> >
> > There were some other proposals for solving this problem
> > and one being "draft-thubert-nemo-ipv4-traversal-01.txt",
> > we should look at this work as well. Before we agree on
> > a solution, we should atleast semantically agree on the
> > problem statement and the scope. I remember you words,
> > we should not boil the ocean in the process, Agreed !
> > But, atleast we should have some amount of discussions on
> > the problem scope. My 2c.
> >
> > Regards
> > Sri
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 [e-mail] wrote:
> >
> >
> >>One of the major barriers to the deployment of Mobile IPv6 today is
> >>the fact that most access networks are IPv4 only. A number of hosts
> >>are already dual-stack capable. While Mobile IPv6 works well in IPv6
> >>networks, it is essential that IPv6 mobility service continue to
work
> >>even when the mobile host is attached to an IPv4 network. The same
> >>applies to a NEMO mobile router as well.
> >>
> >>A number of transition scenarios have been identified in IDs:
> >>1. draft-larsson-v6ops-mip-scenarios-01
> >>2. draft-tsirtsis-dsmip-problem-03
> >>While discussion of these scenarios in the larger scope makes sense,
> >>there is a need to focus on the most critical scenario that would
> >>address the MIP6 host and router problem. The problem in a single
> >>sentence can be stated as: "Mobile IPv6 hosts and routers (NEMO)
need
> >>to be able to reach its (IPv6) home agent and services when roaming
in
> >>and attached to an IPv4 access network."
> >>It makes sense to focus on just this one scenario and solve the
> >>problem immediately.
> >>
> >>The ID: draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel-01 solves the problem of a
MIPv6
> >>mobile node or a NEMO mobile router roaming onto a IPv4 only access
> >>network in a simple manner.
> >>It is intended that the standardization of this solution in the
IETFs
> >>MIP6 and/or NEMO working groups proceed. The working group chairs
have
> >>reviewed and discussed this work item. It has also been presented at
> >>the MIP6 and NEMO WGs at IETF62.
> >>
> >>The chairs would like to hear your thoughts in order to see if there
> >>is consensus to make it a WG document and progress it as a standards
> >>track RFC. Comments should be sent to both the NEMO and MIP6 WGs.
> >>
> >>If we have consensus, then the document will be pursued as a dual WG
> >>item and called draft-ietf-mip6-nemo-v4tunnel-xx.txt
> >>
> >>Make I-D draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel a MIP6/NEMO WG ID:
> >>	For 		[  ]
> >>	Against 	[  ]
> >>
> >>
> >>- MIP6 and NEMO WG chairs
> >>
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>Mip6 mailing list
> >>[e-mail]
> >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mip6 mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6
>



_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6