[Netext] PMIPv6 localized routing - IPv4 aspects

[liebsch at nw.neclab.eu (Marco Liebsch)]

Folks,

from previous mails and drafts, we can identify a couple of issues which we
must take into account when designing a localized routing protocol for 
PMIPv6.
For the PS, I don't think we need to analyze problems which have been 
addressed
for standard RFC5213 operations already, such as a NAT between MAG and LMA.

We could start with the following list to discuss and identify a 
possible problem space
for PMIPv6 localized routing and to find out which of these or new 
issues are relevant
for the PS and the NetExt protocol solution. I tried to collect 
individual items from
mail exchange with Sangjin, from draft-jeong-netlmm-pmipv6-roreq-01 and
draft-wu-netext-pmipv6-ipv4-ro-ps-00.

Any thought, comment and discussion is welcome.

marco

----

[1] MN and CN use IPv4 HoA for communication (IPv4 HoA mobility)

[2] MN's and CN's MAG support different IP versions to signal to the LMA(s)

[3] NAT between MN's and CN's MAG

[4] NAT between MN's and CN's LMA

[5] Different IP version for signaling between MN's and CN's MAG

[6] Different IP version for forwarding of localized traffic between 
MN's and CN's MAG

[7] IP address conflict when MN and CN use the same IPv4 HoA
Isn't that an issue with base PMIPv6 already?

[8] Switch of forwarding tunnel from IPv6 to IPv4 when changing to
localized forwarding between MAGs
Should work if both MAGs are dual stack and can negotiate the IP version 
(?).

[9] Compatibility of route optimization states with IPv4
In my opinion related to the issues above. If we set up IPv4 transport 
or user
plane support on relevant PMIPv6 nodes, route entries and binding 
management need to
have entries for IPv4 addresses.