Subject: RE: [Mip6] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-mip6-nemo-v4traversal-00.txt

From: "Soliman, Hesham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:54:01 -0400

> Hesham, right, let's synchronize.  I was not saying vast majority of
 > Internet is v4, I was saying vast majority of wireless access systems
 > are v4.  In this case, the second scenario you've described in the
 > Problem Statement draft (v6 MN, v6 app, v4-only access 
 > network) is the
 > most valid and urgent.  Would you agree?

=> No. v4 access, v4 app. There is no dependency between
the access and the app that uses the HoA.

 > 
 > > Why would you want to allow a MN to obtain a v4 CoA, while 
 > > communicating with everyone in the IPv4 Internet using an 
 > IPv6 home 
 > > address?? Makes no sense to me.
 > 
 > Makes no sense to me on paper either, but let's address that later in
 > 3-4 years when v6-only wireless access networks are more 
 > prevalent, so
 > implementation feedback could help.   Would you agree?

=> What is the relationship to this discussion? Implementation of what?

 > > You can't use that argument for the CoA and not for the HoA.
 > 
 > Oh, I see.  No I can't.  Fact is though that I can logically say that
 > a marketed wireless device has more chances to acquire an 
 > IPv4 CoA than
 > an IPv6 CoA.

=> Yet you seem to assume that it's ok to communicate with
other IPv4 hosts using that IPv6 HoA.

 > I can't compare number of available CoAs to available HoAs 

=> That's irrelevant, the relevant number is the number of 
CNs using IPv4.

 > 
 > To stop turning in circles, and knowing it's not us deciding, let's
 > deal.  I already said I believe IPv6 MN connecting to v4-only network
 > and v6 app is a problem and needs a solution.  I do.  Would you agree
 > with anything I've asked about?  Most notably about using MIP4 for
 > managing an IPv4 Home Address?  Or about MIP4 doing v4 
 > prefixes instead
 > of MIP6 doing v4 prefixes?

=> No I don't agree with that as stated earlier. 

 > Ok, how about this: a v6 MN with MIPv6 using MIP4's UDP traversal and
 > running v6 app.  This would not break mobility between v4 
 > and v6 access
 > networks for that v6 app.

=> What if some radical app decided to use IPv4?? How can you
exclude the v4 apps?

 > 
 > > It also practically breaks the mobility management for 
 > those relying
 > > on MIP for real local mobility. It's pointless to send to 
 > signals to
 > > the same local agent for v4 and v6.
 > 
 > Is it more meaningful to send one single larger BU than two 
 > smaller BU
 > and RegReq?

=> Yes. A lot more useful and efficient.

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

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 01:01:06 +0200

Soliman, Hesham wrote:
> 
> 
>> Hesham, right, let's synchronize.  I was not saying vast majority 
>> of Internet is v4, I was saying vast majority of wireless access 
>> systems are v4.  In this case, the second scenario you've described
>>  in the Problem Statement draft (v6 MN, v6 app, v4-only access 
>> network) is the most valid and urgent.  Would you agree?
> 
> => No. v4 access, v4 app. There is no dependency between the access 
> and the app that uses the HoA.

Right, the version MH uses is independent of the version of the access.
 And this is a stringent problem when the app is v6 and the access v4.

>>> communicating with everyone in the IPv4 Internet using an IPv6 
>>> home address?? Makes no sense to me.
>> 
>> Makes no sense to me on paper either, but let's address that later
>>  in 3-4 years when v6-only wireless access networks are more 
>> prevalent, so implementation feedback could help.   Would you 
>> agree?
> 

The relationship to this discussion is that the case where access is
v6-only will happen later.  And then some implementor could implement
DSMIPv6 and provide feedback such as to improve the DSMIPv6 spec.  Until
then it can't, so the spec is incurring risks of not having
implementation feedback.

>> Oh, I see.  No I can't.  Fact is though that I can logically say 
>> that a marketed wireless device has more chances to acquire an IPv4
>>  CoA than an IPv6 CoA.
> 
> => Yet you seem to assume that it's ok to communicate with other IPv4
>  hosts using that IPv6 HoA.

Right, misunderstanding.  I was thinking the DSMIPv6 solution
suggests MN to use its IPv6 Home Address as an address that contains an
IPv4 address, thus talking to an IPv4 CN.

> => That's irrelevant, the relevant number is the number of CNs using
>  IPv4.

Right.

>>  deal.  I already said I believe IPv6 MN connecting to v4-only 
>> network and v6 app is a problem and needs a solution.  I do.  Would
>>  you agree with anything I've asked about?  Most notably about 
>> using MIP4 for managing an IPv4 Home Address?  Or about MIP4 doing 
>> v4 prefixes instead of MIP6 doing v4 prefixes?
> 

So you stated earlier you don't agree with MIP4 managing IPv4 prefixes?
 Or about MIP4 managing IPv4 Home Addresses?

Do you agree with _anything_ I'm suggesting for that matter?

>> Ok, how about this: a v6 MN with MIPv6 using MIP4's UDP traversal 
>> and running v6 app.  This would not break mobility between v4 and 
>> v6 access networks for that v6 app.
> 
> => What if some radical app decided to use IPv4?? How can you exclude
>  the v4 apps?

Right, good questions.  Several solutions here.  A mobile phone may have
an IPv4 jvm and IPv4 midlets.  To have that IPv4 midlets transformed
into IPv6 midlets it's sufficient to specify the IPv6 http url format
and port the jvm to IPv6 (not the app midlet).

Another possibility for another v4 radical app to run over IPv6 would be
to port it to IPv6.

Another possibility for the v4 radical app to use its IPv4 Home Address
over a v4-only access is to use MIP4.

Three possibilities, none needing new DSMIPv6.

Alex