RE: [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel a MIP6/NEMO WGs document
"Carl Williams" <carlw@mcsr-labs.org> Thu, 31 March 2005 07:00 UTC
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA19297 for <nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 02:00:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DGtdL-0000po-GJ; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 01:58:27 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DGtdI-0000pb-Iy; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 01:58:24 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA18576; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 01:58:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from colo-firewall-a.elevenwireless.com ([69.30.32.182] helo=smtp.elevennetworks.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DGtkM-0003BG-HM; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 02:05:43 -0500
Received: from kdsl241.sttl.uswest.net ([209.181.90.241] helo=VALUED847D7605) by smtp.elevennetworks.com with esmtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DGtcr-0003tA-FM; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 22:58:01 -0800
From: Carl Williams <carlw@mcsr-labs.org>
To: 'Sri Gundavelli' <sgundave@cisco.com>, 'Vijay Devarapalli' <vijayd@iprg.nokia.com>
Subject: RE: [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel a MIP6/NEMO WGs document
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:11:55 -0700
Organization: KDDI Labs USA
Message-ID: <000001c535b8$8b9d65d0$4132000a@VALUED847D7605>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0503301520590.29341@irp-view8.cisco.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 21be852dc93f0971708678c18d38c096
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: nemo@ietf.org, mip6@ietf.org, ryuji@sfc.wide.ad.jp, Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
X-BeenThere: nemo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: carlw@mcsr-labs.org
List-Id: NEMO Working Group <nemo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nemo>, <mailto:nemo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:nemo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nemo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nemo>, <mailto:nemo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: nemo-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: nemo-bounces@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi Sri, Looking at things from an operational or deployment perspective: One requirement that I believe is highly desirable is the ease of deployment of a solution that enables Mobile IPv6 traversal in IPv4 networks. Additional network infrastructure and/or a complicated protocol will take us further from the base MIPv6 protocol - which impacts the ease of deployment and possible acceptance. It would be highly desirable for operators and users not to have a requirement that their Mobile IPv6 service be dependent on a separate transition service. Finally, co-existence of Mobile IPv6 (a feature of IPv6:) with IPv4 networks is a mandate that we must adhere to ASAP; otherwise, there will be little acceptance to advance Mobile IPv6 adoption/deployment [just think if we waited for the core IPv6 specifications to become RFCs before working on v6ops stuff - where would will be with IPv6 deployment today]. draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel-01 limits the scope to what I believe is the minimum scenario and requires little protocol changes. Let's keep in mind the operator's perspective in the debate. Carl -----Original Message----- From: nemo-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:nemo-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 4:27 PM To: Vijay Devarapalli Cc: nemo@ietf.org; mip6@ietf.org; Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com Subject: [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel a MIP6/NEMO WGs document 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. > 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 Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com 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 > >>Mip6@ietf.org > >>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6 > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Mip6 mailing list > > Mip6@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6 >
- [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID dra… Sri Gundavelli
- [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID dra… Vijay Devarapalli
- [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID dra… Sri Gundavelli
- [nemo] Consensus call on making ID draft-wakikawa… Basavaraj.Patil
- [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID dra… Ryuji Wakikawa
- [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID dra… Sri Gundavelli
- RE: [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID… Carl Williams
- [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID dra… Vijay Devarapalli
- [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID dra… Vijay Devarapalli
- [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID dra… Sri Gundavelli
- [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID dra… Pekka Savola
- [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID dra… Henrik Levkowetz
- [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID dra… James Kempf
- [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID dra… Keiichi SHIMA
- Re: [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID… Alexandru Petrescu
- [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID dra… Vijay Devarapalli
- [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID dra… Pekka Savola
- 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… Pekka Savola
- [nemo] RE: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID dra… Basavaraj.Patil
- 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… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID… Sri Gundavelli
- RE: [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID… Pekka Savola
- [nemo] RE: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID dra… Sri Gundavelli
- RE: [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID… Sri Gundavelli
- [nemo] RE: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID dra… Alpesh
- [nemo] RE: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID dra… Alpesh
- [nemo] RE: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID dra… Kent Leung
- Re: [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID… Ryuji Wakikawa
- [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID dra… Henrik Levkowetz
- [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID dra… Ryuji Wakikawa
- Re: [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID… Ryuji Wakikawa
- [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID dra… Ryuji Wakikawa
- [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID dra… Ryuji Wakikawa
- [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID dra… Ryuji Wakikawa
- [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID dra… Pekka Savola
- RE: [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID… Pascal Thubert (pthubert)
- Re: [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID… Ryuji Wakikawa
- [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID dra… Sri Gundavelli
- Re: [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID… Alexandru Petrescu
- Re: [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID… Pekka Savola
- [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID dra… Ryuji Wakikawa