RE: [Seamoby] DoCoMo Implementation Issues with CTP

"Soliman Hesham" <H.Soliman@flarion.com> Fri, 20 February 2004 04:08 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA15695 for <seamoby-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:08:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Au1xG-0006Dq-5G for seamoby-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:07:58 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i1K47vX0023910 for seamoby-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:07:58 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Au1xF-0006DR-Ba for seamoby-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:07:57 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA15683 for <seamoby-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:07:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Au1xA-0006LT-00 for seamoby-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:07:52 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Au1vl-0006FN-00 for seamoby-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:06:26 -0500
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Au1uO-0006A5-00 for seamoby-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:05:00 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Au1uQ-0005jt-QT; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:05:02 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1Au1u9-0005j4-Aw for seamoby@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:04:45 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA15608 for <seamoby@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:04:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Au1u4-00068Q-00 for seamoby@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:04:40 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1Au1sA-00063E-00 for seamoby@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:02:43 -0500
Received: from fw.flarion.com ([63.103.94.24] helo=ftmail2000.HQ.Flarion.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1Au1rl-0005zz-00 for seamoby@ietf.org; Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:02:17 -0500
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
Subject: RE: [Seamoby] DoCoMo Implementation Issues with CTP
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 23:01:48 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <F4410B91C6CC314F9582B1A8E91DC9281BE722@ftmail2000>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6487.1
Thread-Topic: [Seamoby] DoCoMo Implementation Issues with CTP
Thread-Index: AcP3YFjNxF3vQaQNTzSGsZ23Otzx1QABGJCg
From: Soliman Hesham <H.Soliman@flarion.com>
To: Raghu <dendukuri@docomolabs-usa.com>, seamoby@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: seamoby-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: seamoby-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: seamoby@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby>, <mailto:seamoby-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: Context Transfer, Handoff Candidate Discovery, and Dormant Mode Host Alerting <seamoby.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:seamoby@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:seamoby-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby>, <mailto:seamoby-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

 > MN is moving from pAR(v6 & v4) to nAR(v6 & v4).
 > According to Rajeev's previous mail, only one IP should be used,
 > either v6 or v4, for AR. In this case I was asking how the
 > funtionality should be with the above question.

=> ok.

 > 
 > I am expecting nothing to break in CTP when MN
 > moves from v6 to v4 only AR. 
 > Can you please provide some examples that break.

=> How do you expect the 2 ARs to talk to each other
if they don't have a common IP version? If they do
then sure CTP will work but nothing else will, like: 
- connectivity (existing connections) of the MN using its v6 address? 
- Mobile IPv6 signalling ? 
This is one of the motivations for the dual stack MIP
work that we discussed on MIP6 and v6ops list some time
ago.

Hesham


 > 
 > 
 > regards,
 > Raghu
 > 
 > 
 > _______________________________________________
 > Seamoby mailing list
 > Seamoby@ietf.org
 > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/seamoby
 > 

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