=> 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
Do we have a rough idea about what are the wireless operators and if or when might they: -offer native IPv6 access to wireless terminals. -offer non-NAT access to Internet (only T-Mobile does as of today). -offer Mobile IPv6 HA service in the operator network. -offer Mobile IPv4 HA service in the operator network.
In Europe, I know of important operators offering WiFi and GPRS and UMTS access as v4 only and behind NAT, despite prior claims of UMTS doing IPv6 natively. Their current plans may be different, I'm trying to find out.
So while we might prefer to only have an IPv6 HoA. Operators do and will continue to offer IPv4 home addresses.
I'd call them IPv4 NAT addresses, and not Home Addresses, because a Mobile IPv4 Home Address offers session continuity across the entire Internet, which would suppose having a HA in the operator network and visible from the outside of that network.
In the case of nemo, it is highly unlikely that the MR will have an entire prefix.
Absolutely. I can only dream that an operator will offer to MR more than _one_ IPv4 address. One could of course request several addresses with several terminals, then stick them behind the MR, but it's expensive in terms of money.
What's more likely is that the product will contain a NAT and only one IPv4 address on the egress interface.
I agree.
So we still need to allow the MR to register an IPv4 HoA.
I don't understand why you call that DHCP-assigned 192. or 10. address an HoA? An HoA MUST be reachable on the Internet. Because of this, I don't think MR would register its own IPv4 address to anyone, but maybe its corresponding NAT public address and eventually a port number.
' - 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.
Again, if MR is behind NAT I don't think MR registers its v4 address to anyone, it's useless.
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;
No, I didn't know that, it's good to know.
As you surely don't know my code puts all v6 packets in a UDPv4 tunnel and also keeps MIP/NEMO protocol unchanged.
=> Ok, let's keep this draft "problem oriented" rather than "solution
oriented". If we agree on the problem we can discuss solutions later.
I agree with that with respect to draft-tsirtsis-dsmip-problem-03.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature