Subject: [Mip6] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-mip6-nemo-v4traversal-04.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2007 15:50:04 -0500

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts 
directories.
This draft is a work item of the Mobility for IPv6 Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: Mobile IPv6 support for dual stack Hosts and Routers (DSMIPv6)
	Author(s)	: H. Soliman
	Filename	: draft-ietf-mip6-nemo-v4traversal-04.txt
	Pages		: 23
	Date		: 2007-3-8
	
The current Mobile IPv6 and NEMO specification support only IPv6.
   Hence, this specification extends those standards to allow the
   registration of IPv4 addresses and prefixes, respectively, and the
   transport of both IPv4 and IPv6 packets over the tunnel to the HA.
   This specification allows also the Mobile Node to roam over both IPv6
   and IPv4, including the case where Network Address Translation is
   present on the path.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mip6-nemo-v4traversal-04.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
[email-masked] with the word unsubscribe in the body of 
the message. 
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the 
username "anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After 
logging in, type "cd internet-drafts" and then 
"get draft-ietf-mip6-nemo-v4traversal-04.txt".

A list of Internet-Drafts directories can be found in
http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html 
or ftp://ftp.ietf.org/ietf/1shadow-sites.txt

Internet-Drafts can also be obtained by e-mail.

Send a message to:
	[email-masked].
In the body type:
	"FILE /internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mip6-nemo-v4traversal-04.txt".
	
NOTE:	The mail server at ietf.org can return the document in
	MIME-encoded form by using the "mpack" utility.  To use this
	feature, insert the command "ENCODING mime" before the "FILE"
	command.  To decode the response(s), you will need "munpack" or
	a MIME-compliant mail reader.  Different MIME-compliant mail readers
	exhibit different behavior, especially when dealing with
	"multipart" MIME messages (i.e. documents which have been split
	up into multiple messages), so check your local documentation on
	how to manipulate these messages.

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: Keiichi SHIMA <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 13:51:53 +0900

Hi,

>    and IPv4, including the case where Network Address Translation is

I think this question was discussed before, but I don't remember the  
final consensus on this.  If this is a duplicated question, sorry for  
that.

Why do we need to have multiple IPv4 encapsulation formats?  I wonder  
why we cannot simply use UDP encapsulation always.  What is the  
benefit of providing multiple encapsulation mechanisms?

If we can just specify the UDP encapsulation mechanism only, then  
both HA and MN don't have to implement IPv4 in IPv6 encapsulating  
process for DSMIPv6 and don't need to implement the selection  
mechanism to decide which mechanism to use.  Since IPv4 NAT is almost  
everywhere, I think simply providing UDP makes the implementation and  
operation easier.

---
Keiichi SHIMA
IIJ Research Laboratory <[email-masked]>
WIDE Project <[email-masked]>

---

From: "Hesham Soliman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 20:35:04 +1100

> benefit of providing multiple encapsulation mechanisms?

=> One obvious answer is: saving bandwidth.

 > everywhere, 

=> But encapsulating IPv4 in IPv6 has nothing to do with IPv4 NATs, It's a
scenario where the access network supports IPv6 and therefore you only use
IPv6 for the signalling. I don't see why we should add a UDP header. If the
tradeoff is between making an implementer's life easy by doing less work Vs
reducing bandwidth, I hope we would choose to reduce redundant bits. It
seems strange to add redundant bits just to make sure the implementer
doesn't have to implement IPv4 in IPv6 tunnels. 

Hesham

I think simply providing UDP makes the 
 > implementation and