Subject: (ngtrans) Fwd: [mobile-ip] IPv6 over Mobile IPv4

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 2:34:30 +0200

George and Charles,

FYI, the Internet Draft  &#8220; http://search.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mccann-mobileip-ipv6mipv4-00.txt &#8221; was recently submitted and announced on the Mobile IP mailing list. 

While we are waiting for the security-issues of MIPv6 to be resolved, I find the proposed solution promising.  It provides a mechanism for IPv6 mobility that also incorporates AAA functionality.  In the long run, the proposed idea can be relevant for IPv4 to IPv6 transition.

Their mechanism might be useful to your  "Dual Stack Moving" efforts. It is definitely related to my own Dual Stack Mobile IP draft, which I plan to rewrite, simplify and adapt to their proposal.

Earlier, we have talked about a framework for dual stack mobility. Perhaps their draft could be a good starting point for that discussion? 

-- Paal

---------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Pete McCann <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: [email-masked]
>To: [email-masked]
>CC: [email-masked], [email-masked]
>Subject: [mobile-ip] IPv6 over Mobile IPv4
>Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:39:15 -0500
>
>Hi,
>
>We (Pat Calhoun, Tom Hiller, and myself) recently wrote a draft
>describing a method for running IPv6 traffic while using Mobile IPv4
>signaling for mobility management and security.  We submitted it today
>to internet-drafts; you can find an advance copy at:
>
>http://www.diameter.org/draft-mccann-mobileip-ipv6mipv4-00.txt
>
>Basically, this could serve as an interim solution while we wait for
>all of the Mobile IPv6 security work to converge.  It would allow us
>to use the existing Mobile IPv4 security model, including AAA, for
>securing registration requests, while providing IPv6 service to
>dual-stack mobile nodes.  It may also help ease the overall transition
>to IPv6 because it only requires IPv6 support in the MN, FA, HA, and
>home network, while the network between the FA and HA could be a
>legacy IPv4 cloud.
>
>The draft itself is fairly straightforward; we would appreciate
>comments on the list and would like to see if there is interest in
>making this a working group item.
>
>-Pete