Subject: RE: [Mip4] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-tsirtsis-v4v6-mipv4-01.txt

From: "Kent Leung \(kleung\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 16:58:50 -0700

Hi Vijay.  It's not just the client, but the network infrastructure such
as HA, AAA, provisioning system, logging, accounting, OAM, etc. that can
be leveraged to support IPv6 with minimum change.  What's wrong with
MIPv4 to support IPv6/IPv4 and MIPv6 to support IPv/IPv4 depending on
the environment of deployment?  

Kent

> 
> the clients are being upgraded for IPv6 services anyway. 
> whats special about upgrading the clients from MIPv4 to MIPv6?
> 
> Vijay
> 

-- 
Mip4 mailing list: [email-masked]
    Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 17:03:56 -0700

hi Kent,

Kent Leung (kleung) wrote:
> be leveraged to support IPv6 with minimum change.  

you are upgrading all of them for IPv6 services
anyway. which of the above are you not upgrading
when you deploy IPv6 services?

> What's wrong with

if you put it that way, there is nothing wrong
with it. but folks have been using the
"incremental update" argument to justify this
work. I don't agree with it.

Vijay

---

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2006 23:14:21 -0500

Kent,

There is obviously some degree of reuse with using MIP4 as a tunnel setup
mechanism for carrying IPv6 packets. But it comes at the cost of upgrading
your HA as well as existing clients. And given that an operator/enterprise
has decided to deploy IPv6 (which is the reason for having the MIP4 client
access this network), I believe the deployment has already taken the plunge
towards IPv6. But as someone said given the incremental nature of v6
deployments that we are likely to see, such a solution would address a gap.

But I agree that a solution that enables IPv6 access for (M)IPv4 enabled
devices and vice-versa would be a good thing. And if operators/enterprises
feel the need for such access, at least the IETF would have a solution. It
is better than having all kinds of hacks.

-Raj