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

[Sri Gundavelli <[e-mail]>]

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. 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.

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