Mobility for IPv6 (mip6)

Pekka Savola | 1 Apr 2005 15:31

Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel a MIP6/NEMO WGs document

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
>>> we do want to keep it to just one level of encapsulation.
>> 
>> Why, exactly?
>
> well, if its doable, dont we always want minimal encapsulation?

Not necessarily.  There's always room for optimization but the 
tradeoff is worth considering.  The question is what level is "good 
enough".

> it is doable if the following assumptions from the draft are valid.
>
> - HA has v4 and v6 interface
> - MN is dual-stack
> - HA's v4 address is reachable from the IPv4 Internet.

I've no doubt that it's doable,a nd these assumptions seem OK to me.

>> There are existing mechanisms out there which have been deployed for years, 
>> widely implemented, etc. to deal with exactly these issues.
>
> I am not sure I understood. we are not defining any new tunneling
> mechanisms. the idea is to use the existing tunneling mechanisms.

But instead of using mechanisms which require no protocol 
modifications or new code at all, you're plugging v4 tunneling 
functionality to MIPv6.  In other words, inventing something new.

That's a bit uncomfortable because MIPv6 was not designed for v4:

(Continue reading)

headers

Ryuji Wakikawa | 4 Apr 2005 06:27

Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel a MIP6/NEMO WGs document

Hello Pekka

I agree that we should not re-invent NAT traversal and encapsulation
mechanisms.  

And if this is your concern, we can simply say using IKEv2 and RFC3948
for NAT traversal and using v4-v6 tunnel for non NAT networks. We'll
use the BU/BA for tunnel end points establishment, but this is same as
MIP6. This is simple extension to MIP6 (for me).

regards,
ryuji

At Fri, 1 Apr 2005 16:31:53 +0300 (EEST),
Pekka Savola wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, Vijay Devarapalli wrote:
> >>> we do want to keep it to just one level of encapsulation.
> >> 
> >> Why, exactly?
> >
> > well, if its doable, dont we always want minimal encapsulation?
> 
> Not necessarily.  There's always room for optimization but the 
> tradeoff is worth considering.  The question is what level is "good 
> enough".
> 
> > it is doable if the following assumptions from the draft are valid.
> >

(Continue reading)