Subject: RE: [Mip6] Re: [issue66] Setting up forwarding for IPv4 HoA

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:54:29 +0100

Just to make sure on what the agreement is:

1) There are 2 paragraphs in the original text that we want to update

"
If the binding update is accepted for the IPv4 home address, the home
agent MUST create a binding cache entry for the IPv4 home
address/prefix. If a single IPv4 home address were requested, it MAY be
stored in the IPv4-mapped IPv6 address format. The home agent MUST
include an IPv4 acknowledgement option in the mobility header containing
the binding acknowledgement.

If the binding update is accepted for both IPv4 and IPv6 home addresses,
the home agent MUST create two separate binding cache entries, one for
each home address. The care-of address is the one included in the
binding update. If the care-of address is an IPv4- mapped IPv6 address,
the home agent MUST setup a tunnel to the IPv4 care-of address of the
mobile node.
"

2) When Vijay says IPv4 HoA, we mean IPv4 Home Address/prefix since that
is the language used in the draft and we might set up a network route as
opposed to a host route for IPv4. 

So the text in 1) becomes:

   The home agent MUST create a binding cache entry for IPv6 HoA and
   MUST setup forwarding for the IPv4 HoA/prefix. The forwarding
information
   for the IPv4 HoA/prefix can be in the form of a routing table entry
or a
   separate binding cache entry.  But this information is tied to the
   binding cache entry for the IPv6 HoA and is removed when the
   binding cache entry expires.

3) The text seems to force the forwarding information to be either BCE
or RIB. I'd suggest that these are only examples, since a NAT table
could be useful too. 

So the text in 1) becomes:

   The home agent MUST create a binding cache entry for IPv6 HoA and
   MUST setup forwarding for the IPv4 HoA/prefix. The forwarding
information
   for the IPv4 HoA/prefix can be for instance in the form of a routing
table entry or a
   separate binding cache entry.  In any case, this information is tied
to the
   binding cache entry for the IPv6 HoA and is removed when the
   binding cache entry expires.

IS that OK?

By the way, we seem to also have consensus on renaming the "IPv4 home
address option". I did not see opposition to "IPv4 addressing option".

Any alternate proposal?

Pascal

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Soliman, Hesham [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 2:31 AM
>To: Vijay Devarapalli; RYUJI WAKIKAWA
>Cc: Pascal Thubert (pthubert); [email-masked]
>Subject: RE: [Mip6] Re: [issue66] Setting up forwarding for IPv4 HoA
>
>
> > building on your text, how about the following?
> >
> >    The home agent MUST create a binding cache entry for IPv6 HoA and
> >    MUST setup forwarding for the IPv4 HoA. The forwarding
information
> >    for the IPv4 HoA can be in the form of a routing table entry or a
> >    separate binding cache entry.  But this information is tied to
the
> >    binding cache entry for the IPv6 HoA and is removed when the
> >    binding cache entry expires.
> >
>
>=> This text is perfectly fine with me, anyone has a problem with this?
>If not, then it's in! No more please :)
>
>Hesham

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

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:41:11 -0800

> address option". I did not see opposition to "IPv4 addressing option".

both are fine with me.

Vijay

---

From: RYUJI WAKIKAWA <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 00:27:47 +0900

Hi Pascal,

I am fine with both texts.
And same for the option name.

ryuji

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:52:30 +0100

> And same for the option name.
[...]
>> address option". I did not see opposition to "IPv4 addressing option".

YEs: IPv4 home address/subnet option.

Alex