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

[Ryuji Wakikawa <[e-mail]>]

Hello Sri

On 2005/03/31, at 8:27, Sri Gundavelli wrote:
> 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.

OK, but there is a problem,  "double tunneling".
Packets have, at least,  three IP headers when MN roams to v4 network.
Extra bits and processing costs are burden for MIP6/NEMO in IPv4.

regards,
ryuji




>
>> 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