Subject: RE: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel aMIP6/NEMO WGs document

From: Gerardo Giaretta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 18:06:47 +0200

Hi Raj,

I have two general comments about making draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel a
WG item:

- I agree with you that the scenario you described is the most
interesting one and I'm favor of focusing on it immediately. However I
think that before having consensus on this solution draft, we should
understand if there is consensus on scenarios we want to address and in
particular if there is consensus to address only this particular
scenario. At least I thought this was the MIP6 WG original intention
since MIP6 charter states that the WG will document a problem statement
related to IPv4/IPv6 transition issues.

- I wonder why draft-soliman-v4v6-mipv4-01 has not been considered as a
candidate WG item (at least for MIP6). I'd like to see a discussion
about the pros and cons of both drafts. In my view they tackle the same
scenario in a very similar way. The main difference is the BU message
format: based on draft-wakikawa the source address of the IPv6 packet is
the HoA, since the message is treated as a particular de-registration;
in draft-soliman the source address is the CoAv4 mapped in IPv6 address
format. I'd like to understand better the rationale behind the choice in
draft-wakikawa. Personally, I think that the approach of draft-soliman
is a little bit cleaner since the BU is not considered a de-registration
message. BTW, we implemented draft-soliman: it requires few changes in
MIPv6 stack and works great.

Regards,
--Gerardo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of [email-masked]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2005 9:33 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: [Mip6] Consensus call on making ID 
> draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel aMIP6/NEMO WGs document
> 
> 
> 
> One of the major barriers to the deployment of Mobile IPv6 today is
> the fact that most access networks are IPv4 only. A number of hosts
> are already dual-stack capable. While Mobile IPv6 works well in IPv6
> networks, it is essential that IPv6 mobility service continue to work
> even when the mobile host is attached to an IPv4 network. The same
> applies to a NEMO mobile router as well. 
> 
> A number of transition scenarios have been identified in IDs: 
> 1. draft-larsson-v6ops-mip-scenarios-01
> 2. draft-tsirtsis-dsmip-problem-03
> While discussion of these scenarios in the larger scope makes sense,
> there is a need to focus on the most critical scenario that would
> address the MIP6 host and router problem. The problem in a single
> sentence can be stated as: "Mobile IPv6 hosts and routers (NEMO) need
> to be able to reach its (IPv6) home agent and services when roaming in
> and attached to an IPv4 access network."
> It makes sense to focus on just this one scenario and solve the
> problem immediately. 
> 
> The ID: draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel-01 solves the problem of a MIPv6 
> mobile node or a NEMO mobile router roaming onto a IPv4 only access
> network in a simple manner. 
> It is intended that the standardization of this solution in the IETFs
> MIP6 and/or NEMO working groups proceed. The working group chairs have
> reviewed and discussed this work item. It has also been presented at
> the MIP6 and NEMO WGs at IETF62. 
> 
> The chairs would like to hear your thoughts in order to see if there
> is consensus to make it a WG document and progress it as a standards
> track RFC. Comments should be sent to both the NEMO and MIP6 WGs. 
> 
> If we have consensus, then the document will be pursued as a dual WG
> item and called draft-ietf-mip6-nemo-v4tunnel-xx.txt 
> 
> Make I-D draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel a MIP6/NEMO WG ID:
> 	For 		[  ]
> 	Against 	[  ]
> 
> 
> - MIP6 and NEMO WG chairs
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mip6 mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6
> 

Gruppo Telecom Italia - Direzione e coordinamento di Telecom Italia S.p.A.

====================================================================
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE
This message and its attachments are addressed solely to the persons
above and may contain confidential information. If you have received
the message in error, be informed that any use of the content hereof
is prohibited. Please return it immediately to the sender and delete
the message. Should you have any questions, please send an e_mail to 
[email-masked]. Thank you
====================================================================

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 10:12:29 -0800

Gerardo Giaretta wrote:
> interesting one and I'm favor of focusing on it immediately. 

great.

 > However I

ah.. you werent at the MIP4 WG meeting. the question about multiple
transition scenarios came up. there was an agreement on the following
scenarios. (if I am wrong, those who were at the MIP4 WG meeting,
please correct me).

1) There are people who want to deploy MIPv6 (and NEMO). they dont
    use MIPv4 currently. For these folks the most important scenario
    is to reach the IPv6 Home Agent (and services) from an IPv4 access
    network.

2) There are people who have deployed MIPv4. They want to move to
    MIPv6.

then there are other scenarios, for example, an MIPv4 node ending up
on a pure IPv6 access network. I think those scenarios should be
excluded. not realistic.

I am not sure there was concensus, but the general mood in the meeting
was that the MIP4 WG will look into the second scenario. IMHO, MIP6
should deal with 1).

> scenario in a very similar way. 

okay. draft-soliman-v4v6 deals with lots of scenarios including
scenario 1) and 2) above. draft-wakikawa talks only about scenario 1).
the idea of binding an IPv4 CoA to an IPv6 HoA is very old.
draft-soliman is not the first one that spoke about it. draft-wakikawa
just explains in *very* detail how to do scenario 1), including a new
mobility option, MN and HA operation to process this new mobility
option, IPsec SPD and SAD entries for securing the IPv6-over-IPv4
tunnel, NAT traversal, how to negotiate a particular tunneling
mechanism and new binding ack status values.

> The main difference is the BU message
> message. 

hmm.. but you want to remove any existing binding cache entries that
bind the IPv6 HoA to an IPv6 CoA, right? we are just combining
removing an existing BCE with IPv6 CoA and adding a new BCE with IPv4
CoA.

Vijay

---

From: "Junghoon Jee" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 09:23:24 +0900

Hi Vijay and All,

> was that the MIP4 WG will look into the second scenario. IMHO, MIP6

You're right if my understanding is correct.
Through MIP4 WG session at the IETF62, MIP4 WG folks wanted to 
tackle the scenario 2.

--Junghoon