RE: NAT traversal and its relation to IPv6 [RE: Comments on draft -tsirtsis-dsmip-problem-01.txt]

[Soliman Hesham <H.Soliman@flarion.com>]

 >    No, I want Mobile IPv6 to not require its MN-HA tunnel to 
 > be v6-in-v6
 >    but to require it to be either v6-in-v6 or v6-in-v4.
 >    
 > => you can't do that with Mobile IPv6 itself but it is still possible
 > to use an alternative, i.e., something which looks like Mobile IPv6
 > but works for both IP versions. If you wouldn't like to get routing
 > optimization (something a bit hard in this case :-), I suggest the
 > "road warrior" IPsec VPN. But, even if RFC 2401 is clearly for any
 > combination of IP versions, I am afraid that the v6-in-v4 is rarely
 > supported...

=> Francis, 

The IPsec VPN "road warrior" scenario is only applicable
to just those "road warriors". You can certainly extend MIPv6
to _allow_ v6 in v4 tunnels, which is what Alex was asking. 
I don't see why someone who wants seamless roaming and already
has MIP is required to have another IPsec anchor somewhere 
on the Internet. It's not what IPsec is used for and it doesn't
need to be. 

Hesham

 > 
 > Regards
 > 
 > Francis.Dupont@enst-bretagne.fr
 >