Re: [netlmm] IPv4 Support

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?

See the discussion on Issue 93 on the MIP6 mailing list. This
will be done as part of the DS-MIPv6 spec. It would be a good
idea to just re-use it for PMIPv6.

Vijay

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