Subject: Support for other protocols

From: marcelo bagnulo <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 19:15:55 +0100

Hi,

during the v6ops meeting, Dave (and maybe others) brought up an issue 
about the support for other protocols, like MIPv6, SCTP, DCCP and others.

Curerently the draft is phrased as follows:

   I6: MIPv6 support

   The translation mechanism SHOULD not prevent MIPv6 Route Optimization
   when the CN is a v4-only node

   I7: SCTP support

   The translation mechanism SHOULD not prevent a SCTP communication
   between a v6-only node and a v4-only node

   I8: DCCP support

   The translation mechanism SHOULD not prevent a DCCP communication
   between a v6-only node and a v4-only node

   I9: Multicast support

   The translation mechanism SHOULD not prevent multicast traffic
   between the v4-only nodes and the v6-only nodes.

I recall that there was an issue with this, but i couldn't find it in 
the audio minutes, does someone recalls what was the suggestion?

Thanks, marcelo

---

From: "George Tsirtsis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 09:59:08 +0000

>    when the CN is a v4-only node

GT> I am confused about this one. MIP6 RO requires the CN to
participate in MIP6 signaling for the Return Routability tests. How
would an IPv4 only node participate in such an IPv6 specific
signaling?. This makes no sense to me.
I was also thinking if any other MIP related scenario is worth
considering here, e.g., MIP HA inside vs outside the NAT64. MIPv4 and
MIPv6 protocols, however, are entirely incompatible so MIPv4 to MIPv6
translation is not a realistic option as far as I can tell. My
inclination is to just forget about Mobile IP and all its versions and
denominations for now.

George

---

From: Hesham Soliman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:50:04 +1100

> inclination is to just forget about Mobile IP and all its versions and

=> Agreed. Unless the v6 host can get an IPv4 address, there is no  
need to consider MIP. Of course, we should make sure that v6 to v6  
communications is not affected but that's obvious.

Hesham

---

From: marcelo bagnulo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:04:38 +0200

> signaling?. This makes no sense to me.
Well, what people have suggested is that you can perform the RO to the 
NAT64 box (i.e. the NAT64 perfomrs CN operations on behalf of the v4 node)

> inclination is to just forget about Mobile IP and all its versions and
i am ok with that too

Regards, marcelo

---

From: marcelo bagnulo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 17:32:17 +0200

George Tsirtsis escribió:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:04 PM, marcelo bagnulo <[email-masked]> wrote:
>   
> GT> I would think that in most cases the actual routing optimization
> benefit from such an operation will be zero. IMO we should not even
> bother.
>   

not only that, but we should also make sure that the HoT/HoTI and 
CoT/CoTI fly through the same NATPT box (so it can intercept them) which 
is far from obvious, i guess, so this would work in a limited number of 
cases

Regards, marcelo

> GT> OK :-)

---

From: "George Tsirtsis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 15:28:41 +0000

GT> OK :-)