Subject: RE: [Mip6] comment on draft-ietf-mip6-nemo-v4traversal-00

From: "Soliman, Hesham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 13:36:34 -0400

> 
 > Right, and when MIP4 is used with NAI (RFC specifies that) 
 > and ppp then
 > a stable IPv4 address is provided.  DSMIPv6 doesn't 
 > currently have that.

=> No that's wrong. DSMIPv6 provides static or dynamic IPv4
home addresses based on the request in the BU. Instead of 
the NAI, the IPv6 home address is used. A NAI could also
be used if we had a standard NAI extension in MIPv6.

 > > MIPv4 is not used in this solution.
 > 
 > And because of the reasons above, a DSMIPv6 MN that needs to 
 > detect its
 > movement on a v4-only access network will still need a MIP4 
 > stack.  

=> No. Movement detection is done based on Router Discovery. That's
what MIPv4 assumes...It only extends RFC 1256. You don't need that
extension if you're not using MIPv4, you detect movement based
on RFC 1256. That's something we can detail in the draft.

   In
 > addition to the reasons above, the MIP4 stack is also needed 
 > on the HA
 > to perform proxy ARP for the IPv4 Home Address (a thing that DSMIPv6
 > doesn't).

=> This has zero relationship with MIPv4. ARP is not a function
of MIPv4.

Hesham

 > Alex

===========================================================
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: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 20:02:35 +0200

Soliman, Hesham wrote:
>> Right, and when MIP4 is used with NAI (RFC specifies that) and ppp
>>  then a stable IPv4 address is provided.  DSMIPv6 doesn't currently
>>  have that.
> 
> => No that's wrong. DSMIPv6 provides static or dynamic IPv4 home 
> addresses based on the request in the BU. Instead of the NAI, the 
> IPv6 home address is used. A NAI could also be used if we had a 
> standard NAI extension in MIPv6.

Ok.

NAI is implemented and deployed in some v4-only access networks, and
MIP4 uses it.  If MIP4 is not on the terminal then that would not be
used, right?

>> And because of the reasons above, a DSMIPv6 MN that needs to detect
>>  its movement on a v4-only access network will still need a MIP4 
>> stack.
> 
> extension if you're not using MIPv4, you detect movement based on RFC
>  1256. That's something we can detail in the draft.

Ok, so DSMIPv6 would be extended with Router Discovery.

>> In addition to the reasons above, the MIP4 stack is also needed on 
>> the HA to perform proxy ARP for the IPv4 Home Address (a thing that
>>  DSMIPv6 doesn't).
> 
> => This has zero relationship with MIPv4. ARP is not a function of 
> MIPv4.

Ok, so proxy ARP for the IPv4 Home Address would be something that
should be included in DSMIPv6.

Because if any of these features for permanent IPv4 Home Addresses are
not included, a user may be found in the situation to run both MIP4 and
DSMIPv6 in order to have permanent IPv4 Home Addresses, no?

This is something that DSMIPv6 stated in the Problem Statement: running
both MIP4 and MIP6 is inefficient.  Is running both DSMIP6 and MIP4 more
efficient?

Alternatively, if the goals of DSMIPv6 were not to address a problem
that does not quite exist, it would easily co-exist with MIP4.

Alex