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

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:28:29 -0500

Hi Alex,

>
>I agree using NAT in the mobile network is possible.  I also agree that
>if NAT is used in the mobile network then there can be no mip6trans
>requirement for reachability at a permanent v4 address (behind NAT the
>v4 nodes are not reachable, somebody can't connect() to them).

Well reachability using an IP(v4) address is difficult in the case the
MN has a NATed address. However for various types of applications and
scenarios the v4 address is useful to have for the MN (even if it is
not a globally routable address).

>
>All in all, IMHO, mip6trans should not waste effort on giving v4 access
>to nodes in the moving network; if it does (because consensus) then
>shouldn't do it with NAT.

Enabling a MIP6 node to send/receive v4 packets is useful and worth
doing in the current scope.

-Raj

>
>My oppinion,
>
>Alex
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Mip6 mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6
>

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:53:55 +0200

Hi Raj,

[email-masked] wrote:
>> I agree using NAT in the mobile network is possible.  I also agree
>> that if NAT is used in the mobile network then there can be no
>> mip6trans requirement for reachability at a permanent v4 address
>> (behind NAT the v4 nodes are not reachable, somebody can't
>> connect() to them).
> 
> 
> Well reachability using an IP(v4) address is difficult in the case
> the MN has a NATed address. However for various types of applications
> and scenarios the v4 address is useful to have for the MN (even if it
> is not a globally routable address).

I agree.

>> All in all, IMHO, mip6trans should not waste effort on giving v4
>> access to nodes in the moving network; if it does (because
>> consensus) then shouldn't do it with NAT.
> 
> 

Raj, I do not oppose an IPv6 MH connecting to the v4 access network to
also have v4 access (just as it did until now).  That access can be
withou reachability, without session continuity, as it is today.

It's just that I don't feel there should be a requirement on mip6trans
to "support" or "enable" this in any way.  It just is there and
mip6trans protocol  shouldn't block it.

Making a mip6trans requirement for v4 access on MH leads to v4 access to
nodes in moving network too, etc.  This is clearly out of scope for
mip6trans, IMHO.

Alex