Re: [netlmm] IPv4 Support

Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
> 
>>>> draft-sgundave-mip6-proxymip6-02 also provides support for an
>>>> IPv4-only mobile node. The mobile node need not have a dual
>>>> stack. See section 5.6.
>>>>
>>>> [behcet] You mean, HA is going to cheat MN and act as if MN is dual 
>>>> stack? while it is in reality not so? What?
>>>
>>> I don't understand your question. The mobile node that supports
>>> IPv4 only will continue to use IPv4. It is not aware of the fact
>>> that there is PMIPv6 being used in the network or the fact that
>>> its IPv4 traffic might be tunneled over an IPv6 tunnel between
>>> the MAG and the LMA.
>>
>> Double-encapsulation for IPv4 Host?
>>
>> Would make sense to tunnel an IPv4 packet from MN into an IPv6 tunnel 
>> (between MAG and LMA) and into another IPv4 packet (the IPv6-in-IPv4 
>> of DS-MIPv6)?
>>
>> If the Host is IPv4, and the network between MAG and LMA is IPv4, why 
>> encapsulating with IPv6?  Sorry, I may miss something.
> 
> There is no double encapsulation. It will either be IPv4-in-IPv4
> or IPv4-in-IPv6.

For IPv4, this is not clear at all to me.  Which IPv4-in-IPv4 
encapsulation method?  GRE?  "IP-in-IP" RFC2003?  "Minimal" rfc2004?

Neither DS-MIPv6 nor PMIPv6 seem to say, IMHO.

Or maybe any that is available?

And I'd like this separated, but I said this many times, I think you know.

Alex

> 
> Vijay
> 
>>
>>>> The IPv4 home address given to the mobile node is from a shared
>>>> prefix from the LMA. There is no per-MN IPv4 prefix.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [behcet] draft-thaler-multilink-subnet-issues applies to IPv6 as 
>>>> well as IPv4.
>>>> IPv4 HoA should also be per-MN prefix based according to this draft.
>>>
>>> The updated document is draft-iab-multilink-subnet-issues-03.txt
>>> I don't think the issues apply here, since there is no notion of
>>> a tunnel from the mobile node to the home agent. There is no
>>> notion of a single IPv4 subnet being shared across multiple
>>> virtual tunnels (or multiple links) between the mobile node and
>>> LMA.
>>
>> I think this is too quick discarded...
>>
>> We may have IPv4 multi-link subnet issues with the IPv6-in-IPv4 
>> tunnels between MAG and LMA (not MN).
>>
>> It is not clear at all how ARP runs over the IPv4 subnet shared across 
>> multiple virtual links and how multicast over it.
>>
>> It may be we want to ignore these issues for fast progress though(?).
>>
>>>> Besides, I don't think it is difficult to support per-MN prefixes in 
>>>> IPv4, just use
>>>> 10.0 addresses.
>>>
>>> I don't think we should use private addresses for the IPv4 home
>>> addresses. It is not required.
>>
>> I agree requiring private IPv4 addresses is not good to require.
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>> ______________________________________________________________________
>> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
>> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
>> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> 

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email 
______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
netlmm@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm