Subject: [netlmm] IPv4 Support in PMIPv6

From: "Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 23:18:56 -0500

Hi, Vidya, 

I think IPv4 support is useful but does not belong to base PMIPv6 draft.
This can be considered as an extension of PMIPv6 protoocl.  

Regards,
Ajoy 

To: <netlmm at ietf.org> 
Subject: [netlmm] IPv4 Support in PMIPv6 
From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <vidyan at qualcomm.com> 
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 01:53:48 -0800 
List-archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/netlmm> 
List-help: <mailto:[email-masked]?subject=help> 
List-id: NETLMM working group discussion list <netlmm.ietf.org> 
List-post: <mailto:[email-masked]> 
List-subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm>,
<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=subscribe> 
List-unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm>,
<mailto:[email-masked]?subject=unsubscribe> 
Thread-index: AcdF5t8Cii0gyGd+SoumJ8kNjw+EKw== 
Thread-topic: IPv4 Support in PMIPv6 

This is not a topic raised in any of the reviews, but, I'd like to get a
discussion going on this topic to see what we should do here. 

There are two aspects of IPv4 support that I'd like folks to comment on
- IPv4 MN support and use of IPv4 data tunnels. 

Support for IPv4 MNs - 

One important problem to be addressed is the case of IPv4 MNs being
supported in the PMIP domain. It should be possible to register an IPv4
address with the LMA using PMIPv6 - this requires the regular home
address in the BU to be set to 0 (or some such value) and send the IPv4
address alone using extensions defined in DS-MIP6. I think this is
really crucial to support IPv4 MNs in the short term. In this case, we
need to discuss the addressing model, since the prefix-per-MN model is
not viable for IPv4. 

Support for IPv4 data tunnels - 

The other aspect of this is where the PMA and LMA are dual-stacked
(supporting PMIP6), while the larger part of the infrastructure is still
IPv4. The PMIP6 signaling itself in that case will be carried in IPv4
(potentially), but, to force an IPv4-in-IPv6-in-IPv4 data tunnel seems
wasteful (too much unnecessary overhead). It seems relatively
straightforward to allow the data tunnel to just be IPv4 in that case
(extensions defined for DS-MIP6 should already allow this). This will
allow the access network to largely still remain IPv4, while the PMA
alone is dual-stacked. In this case, the CoA will basically be an IPv4
address. 

Thoughts? 

Vidya

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

---

From: "Sangjin Jeong" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 16:19:03 +0900

I support making PMIPv6 protocol as an individual draft.
Extending the PMIPv6 protocol in order to support IPv4 may slowdown
the progress of base PMIPv6 document. As with MIPv6 and DSMIPv6
case, IPv4 extension (and IPv4-IPv6 domains handover, if necessary) of
PMIPv6 can be a preferable way and would not delay PMIPv6 base
protocol's pace.
Also, a document specifying requirements & goals of PMIPv6 extension
for IPv4 may be needed. Currently, we are working on the Req. & Goals
document. When the base protocol matures enough, it will be possible to
start making the solution for extension.

Regards,
- Sangjin

---

From: "Sangjin Jeong" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 16:50:54 +0900

>I support making PMIPv6 protocol as an individual draft.
                                                                ^^^^^^^^^
Sorry for miswriting.
I meant making PMIPv6 extensions (e.g., IPv4 support) draft as a seperate draft.

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 08:32:07 -0800

> PMIPv6 can be a preferable way and would not delay PMIPv6 base

I don't think so. We have already done bulk of the work
in the DS-MIPv6 spec. It is quite straightforward to
extend it to the PMIPv6. There is no need for a separate
spec for IPv4 support in PMIPv6.

Also talking to folks in SDOs, it looks like this will
be one of the most important features in PMIPv6, since
everybody's core networks are IPv4-only.

Vijay

---

From: "Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 14:48:58 -0500

Vijay, 

Please find inline responses. 

Regards,
Ajoy  

-----Original Message-----
From: Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 10:32 AM
To: Sangjin Jeong
Cc: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [netlmm] IPv4 Support in PMIPv6

Sangjin Jeong wrote:
> the progress of base PMIPv6 document. As with MIPv6 and DSMIPv6 case, 
> IPv4 extension (and IPv4-IPv6 domains handover, if necessary) of

I don't think so. We have already done bulk of the work in the DS-MIPv6
spec. 

Ajoy-> The problem is that if you put everything in single document then
someone implementing 
PMIPv6 RFC (XXXX) will need to implement all the baggage that comes with
it. I do not believe 
that is a good standard practice.  

It is quite straightforward to extend it to the PMIPv6. There is no need
for a separate spec for IPv4 support in PMIPv6.

Also talking to folks in SDOs, it looks like this will be one of the
most important features in PMIPv6, since everybody's core networks are
IPv4-only.

Ajoy-> Defining IPv4 support in separate document is not going to limit
any SDO's ability to adopt this.  

Vijay 

> document. When the base protocol matures enough, it will be possible 
> to start making the solution for extension.
> 
> Regards,
> - Sangjin
> 
>> This is not a topic raised in any of the reviews, but, I'd like to 
>> get a discussion going on this topic to see what we should do here.
>>
>> supported in the PMIP domain. It should be possible to register an 
>> IPv4 address with the LMA using PMIPv6 - this requires the regular 
>> home address in the BU to be set to 0 (or some such value) and send 
>> the IPv4 address alone using extensions defined in DS-MIP6. I think 
>> this is really crucial to support IPv4 MNs in the short term. In this

>> case, we need to discuss the addressing model, since the 
>> prefix-per-MN model is not viable for IPv4.
>>
>>
>> (supporting PMIP6), while the larger part of the infrastructure is 
>> still IPv4. The PMIP6 signaling itself in that case will be carried 
>> in IPv4 (potentially), but, to force an IPv4-in-IPv6-in-IPv4 data 
>> tunnel seems wasteful (too much unnecessary overhead). It seems 
>> relatively straightforward to allow the data tunnel to just be IPv4 
>> in that case (extensions defined for DS-MIP6 should already allow 
>> this). This will allow the access network to largely still remain 
>> IPv4, while the PMA alone is dual-stacked. In this case, the CoA will

>> basically be an IPv4 address.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Vidya
>>

---

From: "Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 18:17:29 -0500

Jeong, 

I think we are in agreement then. 

Regards,
Ajoy  

-----Original Message-----
From: Sangjin Jeong [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 1:51 AM
To: Singh Ajoy-ASINGH1
Cc: Narayanan, Vidya; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [netlmm] IPv4 Support in PMIPv6

>I support making PMIPv6 protocol as an individual draft.
 
^^^^^^^^^ Sorry for miswriting.
I meant making PMIPv6 extensions (e.g., IPv4 support) draft as a
seperate draft.