RE: [mobile-ip] Re: FW: I-D ACTION:draft-tsirtsis-dsmip-problem-0 0.txt

["Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>]

there is not point of even worrying about Mobile IPv4 it will not be
widely deployed and the market will wait for Mobile IPv6 is my view.
also the address space limitation of IPv4 will prevent MObile IPv4 and
with NAT it simply will not work.


/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tsirtsis George [mailto:G.Tsirtsis@flarion.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 11:11 AM
> To: 'Pekka Savola'
> Cc: 'Alain Durand'; Mobile-Ip 
> (mobile-ip@sunroof.eng.sun.com); v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Re: FW: I-D 
> ACTION:draft-tsirtsis-dsmip-problem-0 0.txt
> 
> 
> Inline...
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pekka Savola [mailto:pekkas@netcore.fi] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 9:47 AM
> To: Tsirtsis George
> Cc: 'Alain Durand'; Mobile-Ip 
> (mobile-ip@sunroof.eng.sun.com); v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [mobile-ip] Re: FW: I-D 
> ACTION:draft-tsirtsis-dsmip-problem-0
> 0.txt
> 
> ...
> 
> > We can always complicate things but why not deal with the simple and
> > by far most important issue.
> > 
> > Today Mobile IP signals HoA to CoA bindings of the same version
> > resulting in either IPv4 over IPv4 encapsulation or IPv6 over IPv6 
> > encapsulation.
> > 
> > All I am suggesting is that Mobile IP should be able to 
> signal HoA to
> > CoA bindings of different versions so that IPv4 over IPv6 
> > encapsulation or IPv4 over IPv6 encapsulation is also possible.
> 
> And what benefit, exactly, would the change in encapsulation 
> have?  The 
> Home Agents and the nodes would still have to support both 
> versions, you 
> would just end up with two Mobile IP protocols which (to some extent) 
> supported both IPv4 and IPv6.
> 
> GT> Running IPv6 over MIPv4 today means that you need to somehow 
> GT> encapsulate
> IPv6 over the existing IPv4 over IPv4 tunnel created by MIPv4 
> i.e.: double tunnel. With the suggested approach MIPv4 is 
> itself able to create IPv6 over IPv4 tunnels as well as IPv4 
> over IPv4 tunnels i.e.: single tunneling. And yes, if we 
> extend both MIPv4 and MIPv6 with dual stack extensions then 
> we will have two protocols but a network or a mobile can 
> choose to utilize only one of the two which will take it long 
> way towards ubiquitous connectivity.
> 
> Looking briefly at the conclusions section gives me an 
> impression you want a transport-protocol independent 
> MobileIP++ that's agnostic of IPv4 or IPv6, with an 
> understanding that you would not have to solve the problem of 
> the direct communication between IPv6-only and IPv4-only nodes.
> 
> GT> I am clearly not suggesting transport independency since 
> I am basing 
> GT> the
> extension on transport dependant MIPv4 and MIPv6. I am merely 
> suggesting that these transport dependant protocols should be 
> able to set up  version independent tunnels
> 
> It seems like HIP fits the bill quite nicely, and would be 
> architecturally 
> better approach than trying to glue MIPv4 and MIPv6 together somehow.
> 
> GT>...with the addition that I view this as an *evolutionary* 
> approach. 
> GT>The
> extensions I am talking about are suitable for networks that 
> already utilize or want to utilize MIP (v4 or v6) for 
> mobility management. 
> 
> GT> With respect, HIP has a long way to go before it becomes 
> real and in 
> GT> any
> case I have never seen how HIP is going to solve the mobility 
> management problem...if it does fantastic and the market I am 
> sure will look at this when it becomes available...in the 
> mean time people are deploying Mobile IP.
> 
> Regards
> George
> 
>