Subject: [Mip6] transition issues

From: "Soliman, Hesham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2005 15:46:16 -0500

Folks, 

Sorry for the late reply, I've been trying to catch up with
the concensus thread as I've been travelling. 

I think there are a number of issues there and the discussion
seems to confuse those issues. draf-wakikawa is only addressing
one scenario and should not be seen as _the_ transition solution.
I think that would be a mistake. 

But let's take a step back, draft-larsson has outlined basically
all scenarios that might exist. Before we make a WG draft, shouldn't
we discuss what scenarios we want to address? and why? If we decide 
on the scenarios, then draft-wakikawa might be included as one tool,
that is part of the overall solution. 

Personally, I see no reason for having another MIP-based traveral 
solution, and I'll explain why.

There are already multiple NAT traversal solutions that are not 
specific to MIP. And there are others based on MIPv4. when it comes
to enabling IPv6 in a private IPv4 cloud, I think it makes sense to
used MIPv4 with its built-in traversal techniques. In this case, 
I think draft-tsirtsis makes sense, or another draft along the same 
lines. 

If you want to use MIPv6 only, then there are two cases: 
A. MIP6 only through a private IPv4 network
B. MIP6 only through a public v4 or DS network

Personally, I'm not interested in solving scenario A and I think
it's questionable whether it makes any sense in a cellular network.
This is because it involves keepalives which pretty much eliminates
dormancy and chews battery lifetime. Others might see a need in non-cellular
networks, that's fine, but I wonder why not rely on any other VPN technology
for those scenarios. Basically, I don't see the practical need for this
solution. However, I'm not interested in blocking it.

So, _if_ there is agreement on the need for draft-wakikawa then we 
need to be clear that it is not a complete solution. Given the absence
of a detailed scenarios discussion I feel that this discussion is ill-informed. 
If there is a concensus call now, I'd vote NO. Simply because if we want
to address transition issues, this should not be the first scenario to
address. I have other comments on the way it's solved too, but this is not
the right email for them. 

Hesham

===========================================================
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use
 of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is strictly
 prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient please contact the sender
 and delete all copies.
===========================================================

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6