Subject: Re: [Mip6] FW: Internal WG Review: Recharter of Mobility for IPv4(mip4)

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 16:05:12 +0200

Tsirtsis, George wrote:
> DSMIPv4 overlaps with DSMIPv6 as much as MIPv4 overlaps with 
> MIPv6....i.e., not a lot.

Absolutely, MIP4 cares about v4 addresses only, maybe no overlap at all
between MIP4 and MIP6.  Overlap between DS-MIP6 and DS-MIP4 is different
though IMHO.

> The protocols do something similar but they are very different and it
>  makes no sense to define them in the same spec.
> 
> - DSMIPv4 extensions are extensions to MIPv4. The spec needs to 
> define what a MIPv4 HA, FA and MN are supposed to do with the 
> extensions as wells as how the different entities discover support 
> for such extensions in the specific protocol.
> 
> - DSMIPv6 extensions are extensions to MIPv6. The spec needs to 
> define what a MIPv6 HA and MN are supposed to do with it and all the 
> rest of it specifically in the context of MIPv6 protocol.

I understand one MN would run either DS-MIPv6 or DS-MIPv4.  But how
about the HA?  Would a HA run both DS-MIPv4 _and_ DS-MIPv6?

If one HA wants to serve both DS-MIPv6 nodes _and_ DS-MIPv4 nodes then
it would have to run both DS-MIPv6 _and_ DS-MIPv4.  DS-MIPv4 does proxy 
ARP for the IPv4 HoA (inherits its MIP4 behaviour).  DS-MIPv6 also does 
that proxy.  There seems to be some overlap DS-MIP4 DS-MIPv6 IMHO.

Alex

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

---

From: "James Kempf" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2006 08:52:00 -0700

So I think I understand this from a technical standpoint. If a DS MN has 
MIP4 on it but not MIP6 and must for some reason (Wants to access something 
on an IPv6 networks somewhere through its MIP4 home agent? Other?) send IPv6 
packets back through its home agent, it would use this extension. Is this 
right?

But I'm having a bit of trouble believing that this is ever going to be an 
important deployment scenerio. Why would a DS MN have MIP4 on it and not 
MIP6? Is this something that 3GPP2 or some other major customer of MIP4 is 
asking for, or is it something the MIP4 WG wants to do to establish a kind 
of technical symmetry with the DS-MIP6 work?

Also, presumably once the IPv6 packet gets decapsulated at the MIP4 HA, it 
must be sent out on an IPv6 link. So the home network must be dual stack 
anyway. In that case, if the home mobility service provider is offering IPv6 
service, why would it not offer MIP6 also? Or maybe instead of releasing the 
packet directly from the MIP6 home agent, it goes to some kind of 6to4 
gateway? If that's the case, then why not use one of the standard 6to4 
transition mechanisms?

Perhaps I'm missing some important point that motivates the necessity for 
this work?

            jak

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Alexandru Petrescu" <[email-masked]>
To: "Tsirtsis, George" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Henrik Levkowetz" <[email-masked]>; "Jari Arkko" 
<[email-masked]>; "Peter McCann" <[email-masked]>; "James Kempf" 
<[email-masked]>; "Mobile IPv6 Mailing List" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 7:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Mip6] FW: Internal WG Review: Recharter of Mobility for 
IPv4(mip4)

>> - DSMIPv4 extensions are extensions to MIPv4. The spec needs to define 
>> what a MIPv4 HA, FA and MN are supposed to do with the extensions as 
>> wells as how the different entities discover support for such extensions 
>> in the specific protocol.
>>
>> - DSMIPv6 extensions are extensions to MIPv6. The spec needs to define 
>> what a MIPv6 HA and MN are supposed to do with it and all the rest of it 
>> specifically in the context of MIPv6 protocol.
>