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

From: Keiichi SHIMA <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 15:00:50 +0200 (CEST)

Hi all,

At the IETF MIP6 WG session, the design team talked about the
mechanism to bind an IPv4 home address to an IPv6 care-of address as a
transission mechanism.

I have submitted very similar mechanism for IPv4 networks as
draft-shima-nemo-v4prefix-00.txt, which binds IPv4 prefixes to an IPv6
care-of address of a mobile router and provides IPv4 mobile network
functionarity on top of NEMO.

I wonder if we should consider to integrate these two mechanism to
provide a single way to provide the mechanism to carry IPv4 traffic
for both a mobile host and a mobile router.

What do you think?

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

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 15:58:47 +0200

Hello Keiichi,

> for both a mobile host and a mobile router.

Generally it looks like an interesting idea.  Why restraining the
binding to a fixed /32 full v4 address when binding a variable prefix
(1...32) could bring the benefit of giving v4 access to all nodes in the
moving network (not only to the MR).  So this may look as an obvious
advantage.

However, I was wondering how much would this addition extend the current
scope of the DT work, whose goal was mainly to give v6 (not v4) access
to MR and mobile nodes when MR connects to a v4 network.

Giving continuous v4 access to mobile nodes in a moving network whose MR
connects to a v4 access network can naturally be obtained by running
Mobile IPv4 on the MR, too.

What does the DT think?

IMHO.

Alex

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:23:34 +0200

Hi Keiichi, Ryuji (thanks for clarifying),

Keiichi SHIMA wrote:
> mechanism to bind an IPv4 home address to an IPv6 care-of address as
> a transission mechanism.

I think giving v6 access to a Mobile IPv6 MH connecting to a v4 access
network should be the main requirement for the mip6trans DT.  How this
is achieved is another matter.

The above paragraph proposes to bind an IPv4 Home Address to an IPv6
CoA.  I would not propose to do so.  The reason is that if MH is behind
NAT (most likely v4 access networks that I think of are NAT'ed) so it
makes no sense to bind a 192.168 CoA for a Global IPv6 Home Address.

On the contrary, I'd propose use UDP NAT traversal from Mobile IPv4 and
keep an IPv6 CoA on the tunnel.

> draft-shima-nemo-v4prefix-00.txt, which binds IPv4 prefixes to an
> IPv6 care-of address of a mobile router and provides IPv4 mobile
> network functionarity on top of NEMO.
> 

Generally, adding a prefixlen field too is preferable.  If WG and
mip6trans decide to go with v4 CoA then try to look at prefixes too, so
"integrate" yes.  But, big but, I am against the mip6trans requiremnent
that offers v4 access to MH; mip6trans just solve the case v6 access for
Mobile IPv6 MH connecting to v4 network.

Alex