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

[Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@levkowetz.com>]

on 2004-11-23 10:02 am Pekka Savola said the following:
> 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"..)

Ok, fair enough.  We'll work something out.

	Henrik