Subject: RE: [nemo] Extensions to NEMOv4 base for the Charter.

From: "Tsirtsis, George" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 04:34:59 -0700

DS-MIPv6 vs NEMOv4 is...comparing apples and oranges since DS-MIPv6
clearly requires IPv6 and IPv4 capability in the mobile node/router
while NEMOv4 requires only IPv4 capability in the mobile node/router.

A dual stack mobile then would benefit most from DS-MIPv6
An IPv4 mobile would benefit from NEMOv4

George

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 5:11 AM
> To: Romain KUNTZ
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [nemo] Extensions to NEMOv4 base for the Charter.
> 
> Romain KUNTZ wrote:
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> > Following the discussion from the beginning, I still do not
> > understand what is the advantage of NEMOv4 and extensions compared
> > to, for example, the DSMIPv6 solution. Your point with DSMIPv6 seems
> > to be that the HA requires IPv6. Is there any other concern? Maybe I
> > missed something.
> 
> DS-MIPv6 does not have IPv4 moving network prefixes in the BU
(although
> it may carry an IPv4 hoa).
> 
> The consequence to that should not to be to add the v4 MNP in the
> DS-MIPv6 BU.  DS-MIPv6 already has a too wide scope, should be
reduced.
>   It should only cover v6 continuous apps and permanent v6 hoa when MN
> connected to v4-only access network.  Should not cover v4 hoa, nor v4
> mnp, when connected to a v6-only access network.  The reason for that
is
> that if it tries to do so it becomes a MIP4.  And also, doing so has
> much impact on other protocols that are only IPv4 or only IPv6 (not
> mixtures).  E.g. how would DHCPv4 bootstrap a DS-MIPv6 MN is a
complete
> unknown.
> 
> > DSMIPv6 is very promising as it allows to get both IPv4 and IPv6
> > access in the Mobile Network, while crossing through IPv6 or IPv4
> > networks.
> 
> While it allows an IPv6 access in the moving network when MR connected
> to a v4 access network it does not allow for IPv4 access in the moving
> network (although MR connected to a v4 access network).
> 
> > I cannot see what advantages could bring a pure v4 solution in the
> > future.
> 
> A pure MIP4 NEMOv4 solution allows LFN to have v4 permanent home
address
> and v4 MNP when MR connected to a v4-only access network, naturally;
> when connected to a v4-only network no need to convert v4 into v6 and
> back into v4.  Too much conversion v4-v6-v4 is not good for the
> conversion itself.
> 
> The DS-MIPv6 design is based on two main assumptions: (1) not enough
> memory on MN to run both MIP4 and MIP6 and (2) network bandwidth
> unnecessarily used for both signalling (i.e. MN sends both IPv4 RegReq
> and IPv6 BU when changing a CoA).
> 
> For (1) there are several mobile phones in the market that easily
> support two stacks MIP6 and MIP4, and their combined memory footprint
is
> about 3% or less of the total available memory.
> 
> For (2), when a MN is connected to a v4-only access network that
manages
> its mobility with link-layer, the v4 address does not change whenever
> changing attachment (i.e. no RegReq for movement) and the v6 address
> does not change either if a constant prefix is assigned on the UDP v4
> tunnel interface (i.e. no BU for movement within that v4-only
network).
>   There will be RegReqs and BUs but not upon every movement.  They'll
> happen only for updating the lifetime (maybe every 5 minutes).
> 
> DS-MIPv6 has other advantages but not with respect to MIP4 NEMOv4.
> 
> I hope this is relevant to the questions, otherwise please follow-up I
> will try to clarify.
> 
> Alex

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 16:25:17 +0200

[Changedthe subject line]

Hi George,

I'm not sure what your scenario is, and in which situation NEMOv4
support would be necessary. If someone argue that NEMOv4 is necessary
because there are existing vehicles - for instance - with IPv4
capabilities and the customer doesn't want to upgrade the vehicles to
IPv6, then I guess the customer could be adviced to deployed DS-MIPv6 on
the MR.

It would be interesting to list down in which situation a transition
mechanims (DM-MIPv6 or another one) could apply or not so that we could
clarify how many important scenarios would require a plain IPv4 solution.

Thierry.

On Wed, 10 May 2006 04:34:59 -0700

-- 
Thierry ERNST, PhD
INRIA Rocquencourt Projet IMARA
+33 1 39 63 59 30

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 16:53:51 +0200

Rephrasing - I meant something really different, and my point was about
listing the scenarios for which existing solutions could apply or not.

> IPv6, then I guess the customer could be adviced to deployed DS-MIPv6 on

I wanted to say:

I'm not sure what your scenario is, and in which situation NEMOv4
support would be necessary. If someone argue that NEMOv4 is necessary
because there is existing deployment of IPv4 capabilities and the
service provider doesn't want to upgrade the infrastructure to IPv6,
then I guess the customer could be adviced to deploy DS-MIPv6 on the MR.