Re: [netlmm] IPv4 Support

Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> Hello Behcet,
> 
> Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>> Hello Alex and Behcet,
>>
>> 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.

>> 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 
______________________________________________________________________

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