Subject: RE: [Mip6] RE: [nemo] carrying IPv4 traffic using MIP6/NEMO

From: "Soliman, Hesham" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 11:09:57 -0400

> > => We're not doing anything with MIPv4 in the DT. We're trying to 
 > > allow the MN (that includes MR), using MIPv6, to be able to use an
 > > IPv4 or IPv6 home address in any access network that it 
 > might be in. 
 > > I think this summarizes the problem that the DT is addressing.
 > 
 > I think some of the things that are addressed by the 
 > mip6trans DT could
 > be addressed outside the mip6trans DT.  More specifically 
 > the v4 MR stuff.

=> So let me explain it again: We're *not* doing "v4 MR stuff".
We're allowing the MR to have a v4 HoA/P. There is no difference
between that and allowing a host to have a v4 HoA..

Hesham

 > 
 > I also think that there is one thing to support continuous 
 > IPv6 sessions
 > on a Mobile IPv6 MH connecting to a v4 network and it is a totally
 > different thing to support continuous IPv4 sessions on the same node.
 > 
 > 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.
===========================================================

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 17:26:56 +0200

Soliman, Hesham wrote:

>>>  allow the MN (that includes MR), using MIPv6, to be able to use
>>> an IPv4 or IPv6 home address in any access network that it
>> might be in.
>> I think some of the things that are addressed by the mip6trans DT
>> could be addressed outside the mip6trans DT.  More specifically the
>> v4 MR stuff.
> 
> => So let me explain it again: We're *not* doing "v4 MR stuff". We're
> allowing the MR to have a v4 HoA/P. There is no difference between
> that and allowing a host to have a v4 HoA..

Yes there is.  We've both just said it may become tricky.

Why is the DT looking into the complexity (that was previously named
"tricky") to allow the MR to have a v4 HoA/P?  Isn't the DT facing
enough complexity in allowing MH to have a permanent v6 Home Address
when connected to a v4 network?  To me, at least the NAT traversal part
gives enough headache.

Alex