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

["Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <pthubert@cisco.com>]

>  >
>  > "
>  >    - 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. 

Maybe my concern is only that registering both addresses has to be
optional. For instance, a NEMO MR could use an IPv6 Home address in the
BU as it does today, and explicit mobile network of both types. And it
could have an alternate (v4?) home address option as well. 

Note that the MR also owns at least one 'home' address for each mobile
network, v4 or v6. So it is reachable that way regardless of the type of
the Home Address(es) that is (are) singled out in the registration.

Pascal