[Netext] PMIPv6 localized routing - IPv4 aspects

[jouni.nospam at gmail.com (jouni korhonen)]

Hi Marco, Qin,

On Jun 18, 2009, at 12:28 PM, Marco Liebsch wrote:

> Hi Qin,
>
> please see inline.
>
> Qin Wu schrieb:
>>> Hi Qin,
>>>
>>> please see inline for my thoughts.
>>>
>>> Qin Wu schrieb:
>>>
>>


[snap]


>>
>>>> As regarding Case 2,  as described in draft-ietf-netlmm-pmip6- 
>>>> ipv4-support-12, it is impossible for the LMA to locate behind a  
>>>> NAT unless the MAG and the LMA both locate behind NAT. Take the  
>>>> same scenario mentioned in the case 1 as example, if there is NAT  
>>>> between MAG1 and LMA1 and the LMA1
>>>> and MAG1 are both behind the NAT, I  think also there is a NAT  
>>>> between LMA1 and LMA2.
>>>>
>>> If the IPv4 draft indicates that the LMA must not be behind a NAT,  
>>> the same holds for the
>>> RO protocol extension. Or is there anything extra to be analyzed  
>>> for RO?
>>>
>>
>> [Qin]: I agree. Does it mean RO PS draft needs one strong reason if  
>> it include the scenario where NAT is located between MN and CN's LMA?
>>
> The interface between the two relevant LMAs is important for us.  
> Regarding the scope of
> NetExt to perform localized routing only within a single PMIPv6  
> domain, I am not
> sure if it's a realistic use case which considers a NAT between  
> these two LMAs.
> If this could happen, we need to take care about it.


IMHO it would be good to state what kind of NAT is actually meant  
here. Is it NAPT or what? Some NAT solutions are less harmful.

[snip]


Cheers,
	Jouni