RE: NEMO and draft-tsirtsis-dsmip-problem-03

["Soliman, Hesham" <H.Soliman@flarion.com>]

Hi Pascal, 

Thanks for the comments. responses inline.

 > Thanks a lot for this great piece of work. 
 > 
 > "
 >    - it should be possible to create IPv4 extensions to 
 > Mobile IPv6 so
 >    that a dual stack mobile node can register its IPv4 and 
 > IPv6 HoAs to
 >    a dual stack Home Agent using MIPv6 signaling only.
 > "
 > 
 > NEMO angle here: NEMO could but would not necessarily need 
 > to register
 > an IPv4 home address. This would be useful only if returning 
 > home is a
 > constraint, otherwise HoA is but a correlator and a single 
 > IPv6 address
 > should be enough for both. 
 > 
 > OTOH, support for address families to register IPv4 prefixes could be
 > very useful. Sri and I will submit something soon to NEMO for this.
 > IMHO, mentioning AF in your draft would basically extend its scope to
 > encompass NEMO as well. If that's fine with you, I would suggest
 > something like:

=> We can incorporate nemo requirements here of course. 
However, I'd like to distinguish between two different things:
- What we want to do, and
- what operators might do

Unfortunately they're not often the same thing :( 
So while we might prefer to only have an IPv6 HoA. Operators
do and will continue to offer IPv4 home addresses. 
In the case of nemo, it is highly unlikely that the MR
will have an entire prefix. What's more likely is that 
the product will contain a NAT and only one IPv4 address 
on the egress interface. So we still need to allow
the MR to register an IPv4 HoA.


 > '
 >    - it should be possible to add Address Family to NEMO 
 > Basic Support
 > so
 >    that a dual stack mobile router can register its IPv4 and IPv6
 > prefixes to
 >    a dual stack Home Agent using MIPv6 signalling only.

=> I don't have a problem with this requirement in itself, although
I don't think there will be an "IPv4 prefix".

 > '
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > "
 >    - it should also be possible to extend MIPv4 and MIPv6 so that a
 >    mobile can register a single CoA (IPv4 or IPv6) to which 
 > IPv4 and/or
 >    IPv6 packets can be diverted to.
 > "
 > 
 > Agreed. Note that this does not necessarily means changing the
 > signalling to the HA. As you know, doors hides the v4 address in a v6
 > pseudo coa and the MIP/NEMO protocol is left unchanged; and 
 > so is the HA
 > if the doors gateway is remote. I think there's value to 
 > that and we'll
 > discuss that at the requirement time. For the time being, I think the
 > text here is open enough and I'm not suggesting changing it.

=> Ok, let's keep this draft "problem oriented" rather than
"solution oriented". If we agree on the problem we can discuss
solutions later.

thx
Hesham

 > 
 > Pascal
 > 
 > 

===========================================================
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
 of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly
 prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender
 and delete all copies.
===========================================================