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

[Vijay Devarapalli <[e-mail]>]

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?

> 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.

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