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

"Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <pthubert@cisco.com> Fri, 01 April 2005 16:27 UTC

Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [nemo] RE: [Mip6] Consensus call on making IDdraft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel a MIP6/NEMO WGs document
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 18:22:37 +0200
Message-ID: <7892795E1A87F04CADFCCF41FADD00FCAD82F3@xmb-ams-337.emea.cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [nemo] RE: [Mip6] Consensus call on making IDdraft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel a MIP6/NEMO WGs document
Thread-Index: AcU2v5I6v6wC3vU1ROuQO8Y2kW4a4QADu+tQAAG5mPA=
From: "Pascal Thubert (pthubert)" <pthubert@cisco.com>
To: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com, mip6@ietf.org, nemo@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: list
Sender: nemo-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: nemo-bounces@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Raj:

I suggest that we agree on whether we want NAT/PAT/RevNAT traversal or
not. 

We had this debate some time ago at NEMO, and I presented this at IETF
56::
http://mobilenetworks.org/nemo/ietf56/slides/ietf56-nemo-ipv4traversal.p
pt 

That day, we voted that IPv4 traversal was a GOAL for the WG.

In particular, the discussion turned around NAT which appears to be
really centric to this problem. 

My personal sense is that we DO NEED (all sorts of) NAT traversal. And
it's not impossible if we accept that it works in an agreed upon 'MOST
CASES'. 

Pascal


| -----Original Message-----
| From: nemo-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nemo-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of
| Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
| Sent: Friday, April 01, 2005 5:41 PM
| To: mip6@ietf.org; nemo@ietf.org
| Subject: [nemo] RE: [Mip6] Consensus call on making
IDdraft-wakikawa-nemo-
| v4tunnel a MIP6/NEMO WGs document
| 
| 
| A couple of clarifications regarding the consensus call:
| 
| 1. The intention is to address the following scenario:
| "MIPv6 and NEMO capable Mobile hosts/routers attaching to an IPv4
| access network need the capability to create a tunnel and be connected
| to their MIP6 home agents."
| This is the scenario that is most applicable for MIP6 deployment.
| There are plenty of other scenarios as well. But they are much more
| of academic interest at this time and hence not really in the scope
| of this discussion. So I would suggst that we do not go off on a
tangent
| discussing all these other scenarios.
| 
| Do you agree/disagree that the above scenario is the one that needs
| to be solved ASAP?
| (Note: It does not imply that other scenarios are irrelevant. It
simply
| means that this is the scenario worth working on and has the most
| significant priority or value for MIP6 deployment.)
| 
| 2. ID:  draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel can be used as the baseline. It
| does not imply that we are ruling out draft-soliman-v4v6-mipv6 or any
| other. The IDs can be combined w.r.t the parts that address this
scenario.
| Additionally once it is a WG document, what goes into the ID is
decided
| by the WG. So lets not get into arguments of what or whose draft is
the
| one that should be made the WG document.
| 
| -Basavaraj

RE: [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID… Davis, Terry L
RE: [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
RE: [nemo] RE: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
RE: [nemo] RE: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID… Soliman, Hesham
RE: [nemo] RE: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID… Gerardo Giaretta