Re: [MEXT] GRE support in DSMIPv6 - AD review

[Basavaraj Patil <[e-mail]>]

I still fail to really understand why GRE encapsulation is needed for host
based mobility (DSMIP6).
The only argument below is that it provides "richer semantics than
IPv6-in-IPv6". Can you provide an explicit example of how the richer
semantics are useful vs the IP-in-IP encapsulation for DSMIP6?

Cheers,
-Raj


On 1/19/09 12:09 PM, "Sri Gundavelli" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> 
> 
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
> 
>> [behcet] I couldn't understand why MN would need to support GRE. Can someone
>> explain the use case?
>>  
> 
> This issue was discussed at length. Many reasons were cited as why the
> GRE encapsulation mode may be needed in client-based mobility and why
> it should not be restricted to network elements alone.
> 
> The LMA element in Proxy Mobile IPv6 is a feature extension to the
> Mobile IPv6 home agent. They have a strong relation. If some one
> implements home agent function, implements the data plane with all
> the hardware support for GRE and it cant be leveraged when supporting
> client-based mobile nodes ? Its the same home agent that serves both
> types of nodes.
> 
> The options that we are standardizing NETLMM or MEXT, each should not
> take a different path. Its not that we have one revocation option for
> PMIP, one for NEMO and the other for MIP6. Keeping them together will
> save implementors to leverage all these features and resources across.
> 
> GRE is another enapsulation mode, it exists with much richer semantics
> than IPv6-in-IPv6. The ability to carry non IP traffic, I'm not saying
> I support this for carrying IPX/AT traffic, but the point that its a
> useful encapsation mode that exists in MIP4 and cant be ignored for
> good reasons.
> 
> Sri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> Thanks,
>>  
>> Behcet
>> 
>> 
>>> Hi Pasi, Hesham,
>>> 
>>> The TLV header was specified in the DS-MIPv6 document after rather a
>>> long and acrimonious debate on the former MIP6 mailing list. There were
>>> atleast two consensus calls that were run at that time.
>> 
>> => I don't realy want to get into that, we all know there was no concensus
>> and we had to teleconference to come up with the existing method
>> 
>> Anytime you have
>>> a UDP header with IPv4/IPv6/GRE header following it, you need the TLV
>>> header.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> MEXT mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext

_______________________________________________
MEXT mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mext