IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Keiichi SHIMA <keiichi@iijlab.net> Fri, 01 April 2005 02:28 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 VAA07197 for <nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:28:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DHBsY-0005Bz-NP; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:27:22 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DHBdL-0002Bo-2O; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:11:39 -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 VAA06212; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:11:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from omgo.iij.ad.jp ([202.232.30.157]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DHBkW-0003JU-EE; Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:19:06 -0500
Received: OTM-MO id j312BNg2015850; Fri, 1 Apr 2005 11:11:23 +0900 (JST)
Received: OTM-MIX0 id j312BM24008843; Fri, 1 Apr 2005 11:11:22 +0900 (JST)
Received: JC-SMTP from localhost (keiichi00.osaka.iij.ad.jp [192.168.64.45]) id j312BLCi011633; Fri, 1 Apr 2005 11:11:22 +0900 (JST)
Date: Fri, 01 Apr 2005 11:10:50 +0900
Message-Id: <20050401.111050.01527068.keiichi@iijlab.net>
To: mip6@ietf.org, nemo@ietf.org
From: Keiichi SHIMA <keiichi@iijlab.net>
In-Reply-To: <456943D540CFC14A8D7138E64843F8535BAD25@daebe101.NOE.Nokia.com>
References: <456943D540CFC14A8D7138E64843F8535BAD25@daebe101.NOE.Nokia.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 4.1.50 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 21:27:21 -0500
Subject: [nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel a MIP6/NEMO WGs document
X-BeenThere: nemo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
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 all,

From: Basavaraj.Patil@nokia.com
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 13:33:19 -0600

> 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. 

I agree that we need a mechanism for mobile hosts/routers to keep IPv6
mobility functions even if they jump into IPv4 network.

Personally, I am not sure if we need to save 40bytes instead of using
some other general tunneling mechanism.  But, I also personally feel
that we need much time if we wait for a general tunneling mechanism to
be defined, which we don't want to.  Defining a simple traversal
mechanism in MIP6/NEMO protocol makes sense to me.

The proposal (draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel) is simple enough and it
looks easy to implement from implementor's point of view.  It only
focuses IPv6 mobility which seems a good tradeoff to me.

However, I still don't fully understand the pros and cons between
draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel and draft-soliman-v4v6-mipv6.  I want to
see which is better for our purpose.

---
Keiichi SHIMA
IIJ Research Laboratory <keiichi@iijlab.net>
KAME Project <keiichi@kame.net>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email