Subject: (ngtrans) RE: mobile node in transition network (Re: MIPv6 and MIPv4 [Re: ( ngtrans) Next steps])

From: "Liu, Changwen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 10:59:53 -0800

-----Original Message-----
From: Shiao-Li Tsao (Charles) [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 9:58 PM
To: Thomas Narten; Pekka Savola
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: mobile node in transition network (Re: MIPv6 and MIPv4 [Re:
(ngtrans) Next steps])

> IMO, the ngtrans WG has no business taking on general Mobile IP
> issues. There is a mobile IP WG, and any such work would need to be
> taken there first.

====> According to the yet-to-be-finalized NGTRANS new charter as well as
the current charter, NGTRANS WG's missions are "to specify the tools and
mechanisms that might be used for transition to IPv6" and "to write
documents outlining how the various transition tools and mechanisms might
apply to various scenarios for a transition to IPv6". The issue we are
dealing with is, roughly speaking, how we make IPv6 mobile nodes work in
IPv4 domains and IPv4 mobile nodes work in IPv6 domains and what
tools/mechanism are needed to support these. The issue exists ONLY within
the transition period, not before the transition period and not after the
transition period. So the issue should be an transition issue. I agree in
less extent that the issue might be a Mobile IP problem too. IMHO, the issue
is a better fit for NGTRANS WG than for MIP WG. 

>
> I'll note that MIPv6 is not done yet. It seems premature to be
> worrying about transition issues until the spec is done and we see
> what sort of MIPv6 deployment will actually happen.

====>Is MIPv6 pretty close to the last call? My impression is that MIPv6 is
at its final development stage and so is close to be done. The chance for
any major modifications to mipv6-16 is small. However regardless how the
final MIPv6 looks like, the transition issue will always be there and need
to be addressed.  Instead of waiting and doing nothing, we can always work
out solution framework proactively and then finalize the solution after
MIPv6 is finalized.

>
> The MIP WG (not here) is where the experts on this stuff are.
>
> MIPv4 deployment is limited to certain environments. Before worrying
> about transition issues involving MIPv4, the community that is
> deploying MIPv4 would need to be consulted (that is not happening
> here).
>
> To summarize, any MIPv4->MIPv6 transition issues need to first be run
> through the MIP WG. The work could then be done there, or perhaps in a

====> Partially agree. MIP WG involvement is helpful. But I still think
NGTRANS should work on the transition issues related to MIP, which can be
considered as one class of transition issues. 

> new WG that as a reasonable idea of what problem it is solving. In any
> case, in the absence of a clear request from the MIP WG to do work in
> this space, ngtrans should not.
>
> Thomas

====>changwen

Personally, I see it as a mobile node in a transition network problem not a
MIPv4->MIPv6 transition problem. As for MIPv4->MIPv6 transition problem,
surely we should go back to mobileIP WG to discuss it, but it seems no
MIPv4->MIPv6 transition issue. As for mobile node in transition network,
basically we are dealing with existing ngtrans tools or create new ngtrans
tools (if required) but assume no mobile IP modification. I think we should
discuss here in ngtrans WG. Regarding of recent deployment of IPv6 and the
maturity of MIPv6, I think that is the time we need to  face the mobile node
in transition network problem.

Charles