[nemo] Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel a MIP6/NEMO WGs document
Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com> Wed, 30 March 2005 23:29 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 SAA10211 for <nemo-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:29:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DGmb6-0003pF-Eq; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:27:40 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DGmb4-0003oU-Ek; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:27:38 -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 SAA09848; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:27:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com ([64.102.122.148]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DGmi4-0002Sp-Ql; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:34:53 -0500
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (64.102.124.13) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Mar 2005 18:47:37 -0500
X-IronPort-AV: i="3.91,136,1110171600"; d="scan'208"; a="42560579:sNHT30631260"
Received: from irp-view8.cisco.com (irp-view8.cisco.com [171.70.65.145]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id j2UNRQjJ016730; Wed, 30 Mar 2005 18:27:27 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 15:27:26 -0800
From: Sri Gundavelli <sgundave@cisco.com>
To: Vijay Devarapalli <vijayd@iprg.nokia.com>
In-Reply-To: <424B32A4.9040408@iprg.nokia.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0503301520590.29341@irp-view8.cisco.com>
References: <456943D540CFC14A8D7138E64843F8535BAD25@daebe101.NOE.Nokia.com> <Pine.GSO.4.58.0503301420440.29341@irp-view8.cisco.com> <424B32A4.9040408@iprg.nokia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ff03b0075c3fc728d7d60a15b4ee1ad2
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
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
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