[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: comments on draft-larsson-v6ops-mip-scenarios-00.txt



On Fri, 19 Nov 2004, Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
It would give more transport overhead, of course, and as MIP is
already basically a traffic tunnelling proposition, it makes not a lot
of sense to me personally ,:-)  But yes, this could be done - now we
have to wonder if it is sensible enough that we should increase our
matrices with another dimension and include this in the draft :-)

I'm not sure if the matrix needs to be expanded; I took this to be just another solution approach to the case:

2 IPv6 MIPv4 IPv4 IPv4 "IPv6 in MIPv4"

Yes, with you so far, but if there are 5 possible reasonable tunnel solutions, in addition to adapting MIP4 to carry IPv6, should we discuss all of those? And accordingly for IPv4 in MIP6 ?

If you change "IPv6 in MIPv4" to "IPv6 on MIPv4", that should cover all forms of tunneling, also doing it with MIPv4? (Or if not, maybe "IPv6 on/in MIPv4"..)


--
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings