Subject: [manet] ipv4 address and network address translation

From: "John Paul O'Grady" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 14:10:53 +0100

Hello 

I have a question in regard to ipv4 addresses in autoconfiguration in
manets. I know globally unique ipv6 addresses can be created
dynamically using for example a nodes mac addresses. 

This wont be possible for ipv4 addresses (32 bit addresses)and so if
a globally unique ipv4 addresses cant be created will private
addresses have to be used in the manet? 

Then if the node wants to access the internet, will network address
translation (NAT) have to be used to translate the private address
into a public address?

john paul o grady

-------------------Legal  Disclaimer---------------------------------------

The above electronic mail transmission is confidential and intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Its contents may be protected by legal and/or professional privilege. Should it be received by you in error please contact the sender at the above quoted email address. Any unauthorised form of reproduction of this message is strictly prohibited. The Institute does not guarantee the security of any information electronically transmitted and is not liable if the information contained in this communication is not a proper and complete record of the message as transmitted by the sender nor for any delay in its receipt.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---

From: "Phil Neumiller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:58:58 -0400

Hi John Paul,

I have probably stated this more than a few times on this list, but
what the heck. A mobile IPv4 static home addresses is a logical
and convenient choice for routing in MANETS (I think :-). 

A). MIPv4 addresses are unique by definition

B). If you use DHCP in your MANET (that happens to have gateways
      to fixed infrastructure) to acquire a topologically correct address 
      (maybe behind a NAT too), you can still be globally reached using
      MIPv4.

C). When you lose connectivity to the mobility agents you 
      don't have to lose your manet routes because your were 
      already routing peer-to-peer with MIP home addresses

D).  The downside seems to be all those extra unicast routes and
        the lack of any aggregation possibility if you are using all
        those home addresses from different networks.

Some issues crop up here (besides security of course).  It is my
understanding that RFC 1256 is not widely implemented in the global
Internet (i.e. Cisco routers) and MIPv4 also puts a dependency on this
RFC for its own ICMP based agent advertisements.  Lets suppose you
have a mobility agent upstream in your backhaul somewhere advertising
into your attached ad hoc network. Should the TTL field be used to limit
the flood of these ICMP broadcasts over the MANET? 

It seems you need to get MIPv4 to update your MANET route table
with the default route being to the mobility agent whenever one is 
discovered or a new registration occurs. 

One can think of optimizations that allow a reduction in flooding
like proxy responses to agent solicitations etc. 

Thanks,

Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: John Paul O'Grady [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 9:11 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [manet] ipv4 address and network address translation

Hello 

--
Phillip D. Neumiller ([email-masked])
My PGP key can be imported from the following URL: http://pgpkeys.mit.edu
BTW:  It is undecidable whether an arithmetical formula is true!
_______________________________________________
manet mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/manet

---

From: "Phil Neumiller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:58:58 -0400

Hi John Paul,

Thanks,

Phil
-----Original Message-----
From: John Paul O'Grady [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 9:11 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [manet] ipv4 address and network address translation

Hello

---

From: "A A" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 23:35:18 +0000

Hi Phil,

Is there any RFC/Document stating how mobile IPv4 static home addresses are 
assigned. My understanding is that for assigning topological correct address 
to nodes in adhoc network you have to go through a DHCP server. Which might 
be one or more hops away. There might be several issues involved in the 
process. The prominent one i see is routing using MAC address till the node 
gets an IP address i.e. a node is trying to get to DHCP server. This 
offcourse raise concerns about security. Is there any other method to get 
IPv4 address for a mobile node.

Thanks,
Abdul

>From: "Phil Neumiller" <[email-masked]>
>Reply-To: "Phil Neumiller" <[email-masked]>
>To: <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
>Subject: RE: [manet] ipv4 address and network address translation
>Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 10:58:58 -0400
>
>Hi John Paul,
>

_________________________________________________________________
Unlimited Internet access for only $21.95/month.  Try MSN! 
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/2monthsfree.asp

---

From: "A A" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 23:35:18 +0000

Hi Phil,

Thanks,
Abdul

---

From: "Phil Neumiller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:10:36 -0400

Hi Abdul,

There are the following drafts:

draft-royer-manet-globalv4-00.txt
draft-wakikawa-manet-globalv6-00.txt

Which I have commented on w/respect to addressing and mobile IP on
this list (i.e. the thread is in the archives).  I have yet to get back to
Charlie, on his last response (which I must apologize for).   

I guess I would like to see these drafts talk up the MIP / MANET interaction
a bit more than they do, and precisely which changes (and how) need to be
made to accomodate RFC 1256.  I have not had time to articulate these
changes myself.  In general, I think MIP addresses could be used for
unicast routing in MANETs and allow for a smooth transition from ad hoc
to ad hoc with infrastructure modes.  The whole issue of agent/router/
(default gateway) discovery vs SeaMoby CAR needs some attention 
rather quickly I think.

I see SeaMoby going one way, and MIP another.  How manet could/should fit
into this remains foggy (at least to me).  The question involves support of multi-cast,
TTL treatment (limited manet flooding), and  handling of security associations 
for starters.  Hopefully, I can get back to this subject soon.

More specifically, yes you would typically use DHCP to obtain topologically
correct addresses in a globally connected MANET when you were using MIP,
however, that does NOT mean you need to use those addresses for MANET
routing!  I am advocating using the MIP  unicast home addresses for MANET
routing, thus allowing a smooth transition in an out of "Connected MANET" or
NEMO/MONET modes and allowing global reachability when it is available.
This seems to offer the most flexibility to me in practical MANET but does NOT
allow for any sort of address aggregation in the MANET.

Thanks,

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: A A [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 7:35 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [manet] ipv4 address and network address translation

Hi Phil,

---

From: "Phil Neumiller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 13:10:36 -0400

Hi Abdul,

Thanks,

Phil

-----Original Message-----
From: A A [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 7:35 PM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [manet] ipv4 address and network address translation

Hi Phil,