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

From: "Tsirtsis, George" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 06:02:23 -0700

In a recent discussion on the mailing list I suggested that we should
define FA support and dynamic prefix allocation for the NEMOv4 base
solution.

A number of people at the time seemed to be supportive of the idea and I
am in the process of writing a draft on the subject. Could we extend the
charter to cover these issues?

Thanks
George

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 18:51:35 +0200

Tsirtsis, George wrote:
> A number of people at the time seemed to be supportive of the idea
> and I am in the process of writing a draft on the subject. Could we
> extend the charter to cover these issues?

I agree to request extending the Charter to deal with FA support for
NEMOv4.  Maybe that could be simply put like: "produce IPv4 NEMO
protocol based on Mobile IPv4 (basic support, FA support and prefix
allocation from the foreign and/or home networks)."

Or similar?  Just some short phrasing.

Alex

---

From: Thierry Ernst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 10:27:37 +0200

Dear all,

Just a note, I remember v4-defenders stating not so long ago that they
would just do something basic on V4 for NEMO, but now some folks are
suggesting FA support, prefix allocation, etc. What is next ?

I don't personaly mind work on NEMOv4 (but I don't support this),
however, I do mind that the NEMO WG has a strong focus on v6, and I
would rather see work on v4 and v6 taking places in SEPARATE working
groups. Many people don't want to lose their time on v4 discussions.

I really think that melting IPv4 and IPv6 in a single working group is
at minimum confusing, and possibly damaging the message the IETF is
addressing to the world (i.e. non-IETFers who follow the output of the
IETF, but not the internal discussions). 

The only exception I see to this if v4-v6 interoperability issues, if any. 

PS:  I was unable to participate to the IETF and the discussions on IETF
mailing lists since mid-March until now (back to normal mode now, I
hope), so there are a lot of important discussions in which I couldn't
participate. I still need to dig back into the discussions to see what
other important thread I missed.

Thierry

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

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 14:50:46 +0200

Thierry Ernst wrote:
> Dear all,
> 
> Just a note, I remember v4-defenders stating not so long ago that 
> they would just do something basic on V4 for NEMO, but now some folks
>  are suggesting FA support, prefix allocation, etc. What is next ?

Next will come whatever somebody may need.

With respect to the initial statement that initially there would be only
the basic v4 NEMO, I still agree and still propose to have the basic
support document just basic no FA and/or prefix allocation extensions.

> I really think that melting IPv4 and IPv6 in a single working group 
> is at minimum confusing,

I somehow agree with you.  Mainly it's good to divide work when there's
too much of it.

> and possibly damaging the message the IETF is addressing to the world
>  (i.e. non-IETFers who follow the output of the IETF, but not the 
> internal discussions).

That looks strange to me.  I don't think IETF has any single coherent
message to address to the world (and that's all for the better).  And
there are many WGs still addressing IPv4 together with IPv6.

> The only exception I see to this if v4-v6 interoperability issues, if

YEs, the easiest way for a MR to connect to both a v4 and a v6
infrastructures is still to have a MIP4 stack and a MIP6 stack.  It's
true that mip6trans tries to optimize this and use exclusively DS-MIPv6
(no MIP4) but that's still an enhancement and/or optimization.
Moreover, DS-MIPv6 can does not try to accomodate some particular
deployments where both a MIP4 and a MIP6 stack are used on the MR (i.e.
DS-MIPv6 doesn't accommodate a v6-only HA).

> PS:  I was unable to participate to the IETF and the discussions on 
> IETF mailing lists since mid-March until now (back to normal mode 
> now, I hope), so there are a lot of important discussions in which I 
> couldn't participate. I still need to dig back into the discussions 
> to see what other important thread I missed.

It's fine, your comments don't show any misinformation, no new
information showed up on the mailing list opposing NEMOv4 work since
last time you wrote.

Alex

---

From: "Davis, Terry L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 07:23:26 -0700

Thierry

I agree!

I would like to insure that the v6 solution includes the ability to
support an architecture that would allow our existing v4 aircraft to be
supported by v6 mobility.  In our case, trying to support global
aircraft fleets with two separate mobility architectures (v4 & v6) does
not seem reasonable.

Take care
Terry

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thierry Ernst [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 1:28 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [nemo] Extensions to NEMOv4 base for the Charter.
> 
> 
> Dear all,
> 
IETF

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 09:10:43 +0300

You mean that you can use v6 signaling to convey information about v6 
addresses, like DSMIP?
that sound reasonable to me...
regards, marcelo

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 11:12:58 +0200

marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
>  addresses, like DSMIP? that sound reasonable to me...

Yes, DS-MIPv6 is an extension to Mobile IPv6 allowing a MN to connect to
an IPv4-only infrastructure.  It requires MN and HA to run both IPv4 and
IPv6 (and DS-MIP6 but not MIP4).  It uses the MN's IPv4 address as a
IPv4-mapped IPv6 address.  It allows MN to run IPv6 continuous apps.

As such, it does not offer support for an IPv6-exclusively HA.  DS-MIPv6
HA must run IPv4 too.  I think there is some deployed networks running
only IPv6, although not at the edge.

I think the air-space industry will be happy (I don't know) with its
infrastructure running IPv4 now, IPv4 and IPv6 in the near future,
and IPv6 only for the longer term.  Although an infrastructure is
running IPv6 only (and under control of s single operator) the points of
"docking" for an air-space element are under the control of so many
other operators that they can't be assumed to be IPv6-only at the time
the infrastructure operator pulls the plug on IPv4.

DS-MIPv6 will not be useful in these cases.

Alex

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 12:33:33 +0300

Hi Alex,

El 04/05/2006, a las 12:12, Alexandru Petrescu escribió:

> As such, it does not offer support for an IPv6-exclusively HA.

i think i am lost... if you want only IPv6, wouldn't just MIPv6/nemov6 
be enough for that?

I mean if you have a v4 CoA or a v4 HoA the HA needs to support v4, in 
order to receive or send packet to the address. If there is no v4 
HoA/CoA, what do need v4 support for?

regards, marcelo

>   DS-MIPv6

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 12:04:56 +0200

marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
>>> You mean that you can use v6 signaling to convey information 
>>> about v6 addresses, like DSMIP? that sound reasonable to me...
>> 
>> Yes, DS-MIPv6 is an extension to Mobile IPv6 allowing a MN to 
>> connect to an IPv4-only infrastructure.  It requires MN and HA to 
>> run both IPv4 and IPv6 (and DS-MIP6 but not MIP4).  It uses the 
>> MN's IPv4 address as a IPv4-mapped IPv6 address.  It allows MN to 
>> run IPv6 continuous apps.
>> 
> i think i am lost... if you want only IPv6, wouldn't just 
> MIPv6/nemov6 be enough for that?

Yes, it would.  But not with DS-MIPv6.  Even if the access network is
IPv4-only.

> I mean if you have a v4 CoA or a v4 HoA the HA needs to support v4, 
> in order to receive or send packet to the address.

As reflected in some discussions I had recently on the MIP6 list,
there's a big issue I (or you or both) may have with understanding "v4
CoA" in the context of MIP6.

Otherwise, you're right, if you have a v4 CoA/HoA then v4 apps on MN
should be supported.  That's best done with MIP4.  Doing it with
DS-MIPv6 instead implies that MIP6 HA must support IPv4.

I.e. DS-MIPv6 requires one's infrastructure to support IPv4 when the
access network is IPv4.

> If there is no v4 HoA/CoA, what do need v4 support for?

We need IPv6 apps running on MN to continue when MN accesses an
IPv4-only access network, and MN owned by an IPv6-only infrastructure.

I don't think we need to work on continuous IPv4 apps running on MN -
it's MIP4.

Alex

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 13:20:31 +0300

El 04/05/2006, a las 13:04, Alexandru Petrescu escribió:

>>>> You mean that you can use v6 signaling to convey information about 
>>>> v6 addresses, like DSMIP? that sound reasonable to me...
>>> run both IPv4 and IPv6 (and DS-MIP6 but not MIP4).  It uses the MN's 
>>> IPv4 address as a IPv4-mapped IPv6 address.  It allows MN to run 
>>> IPv6 continuous apps.

what would be the alternative? i mean how do you register a v4 CoA for 
a v6 HoA if not using DSMIP then?

> CoA" in the context of MIP6.

i am not following the mip6 list lately, and i don't want to go into 
discussion that thye have already had there, but, as i understand it, 
the HoA is the upper layer identifier used for the communications while 
the CoA is the locator (while the node is away from home), so i don't 
see any problems in having a identifier associated with alocator that 
is form another address family... i mean having a v6 HoA boound to a v4 
CoA does nto present any conceptual issues to me... what am i missing?

> DS-MIPv6 instead implies that MIP6 HA must support IPv4.

i guess that your issue is with respect to regsitering a v4 CoA for a 
v4 HoA using DSMIP... as i read that is just a signalling optimization 
in case that you are running both v4 and v6 in order to avoid using 
mipv4 and mipv6 simoultaneously (of course if you are running just v4, 
no point in running DSMIP, just use MIPv4)

> IPv4-only access network, and MN owned by an IPv6-only infrastructure.

this is one of the things that DSMIP provides, right?

or there is another alternative for this?

> I don't think we need to work on continuous IPv4 apps running on MN -

agree

regards, marcelo

PS: please let me know if this is OT for the list and i go private

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 12:44:30 +0200

marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
>>>> connect to an IPv4-only infrastructure.  It requires MN and HA
>>>>  to run both IPv4 and IPv6 (and DS-MIP6 but not MIP4).  It uses
>>>>  the MN's IPv4 address as a IPv4-mapped IPv6 address.  It
>>>> allows MN to run IPv6 continuous apps. As such, it does not
>>>> offer support for an IPv6-exclusively HA.
>> Yes, it would.  But not with DS-MIPv6.  Even if the access network
>>  is IPv4-only.
>> 
> 
> what would be the alternative? i mean how do you register a v4 CoA 
> for a v6 HoA if not using DSMIP then?

One would register the v4 CoA for a v4 HoA with MIP4, and a v6 CoA for a
v4 HoA with MIP6.  DS-MIPv6 starts with the assumption that MN is not
efficient to run both MIP4 and MIP6 and proposes DS-MIPv6 instead, but
at the same time requires HA to run both v4 and v6.  Running both MIP4
and MIP6 on MN (and not DS-MIPv6) does not require a HA to run both IPv4
and IPv6.  The HA running IPv4 can be different than the HA running
IPv6, thus there's place for IPv6-only infrastructure for HA.

One thing that DS-MIPv6 has and MIPv6 hasn't is NAT traversal (re-used
from MIPv4's NAT Traversal).

>>> I mean if you have a v4 CoA or a v4 HoA the HA needs to support 
>>> v4, in order to receive or send packet to the address.
>> 
>> there's a big issue I (or you or both) may have with understanding
>>  "v4 CoA" in the context of MIP6.
>> 
> 
>  discussion that thye have already had there,

That's ok.  Basically I write same messages as here and get strong
push-back.

> but, as i understand it, the HoA is the upper layer identifier used 
> for the communications while the CoA is the locator (while the node 
> is away from home), so i don't see any problems in having a 
> identifier associated with alocator that is form another address 
> family... i mean having a v6 HoA boound to a v4 CoA does nto present 
> any conceptual issues to me... what am i missing?

The above reasoning seems correct.  That implies however that the
DS-MIPv6 HA runs both v4 and v6.  That's clear in the draft and it's
accepted in the MIP6 WG also.  Whether this is a useful thing or not
it's a matter of debate.

I mean if I have an MN and I wonder what should I put on it: both MIPv6
and MIPv4 or only DS-MIPv6?  I may answer myself both MIPv6 and MIPv4
because DS-MIPv6 doesn't allow me to have an IPv6-only HA infrastructure.

If on the other hand I consider that it's not efficient to run both
MIPv6 and MIPv4 messaging then I'd prefer DS-MIPv6 and try to have all
my HA infrastructure support both IPv4 and IPv6.  From an "efficiency"
perspective that's still debatable.

On yet another hand, if I consider that my MN runs only IPv6 apps (no
IPv4 apps) then no need of MIPv4 on it and thus even less need to run
IPv4 on my HA infrastructure.  But I still need to connect to the
IPv4-only access network.  That could be done by re-using only the IPv4
UDP tunnel from MIP4 NAT Traversal, not the entire MIP4.

>> Otherwise, you're right, if you have a v4 CoA/HoA then v4 apps on 
>> MN should be supported.  That's best done with MIP4.  Doing it with
>  v4 HoA using DSMIP... as i read that is just a signalling 
> optimization in case that you are running both v4 and v6 in order to
>  avoid using mipv4 and mipv6 simoultaneously (of course if you are 
> running just v4, no point in running DSMIP, just use MIPv4)

I somehow agree.

>> I.e. DS-MIPv6 requires one's infrastructure to support IPv4 when 
>> the access network is IPv4.
>> 

DS-MIPv6 (draft-ietf-mip6-nemo-v4traversal-01.txt) doesn't, because
doesn't allow MN to be owned by a v6-only HA infrastructure.

"DS-MIPv4" (draft-tsirtsis-v4v6-mipv4-01.txt) doesn't either, because
it's modifications to MIPv4 and an IPv6 address can't be converted into
an IPv4 address, and that it assumes too that the HA runs IPv4.

> or there is another alternative for this?

The non-specified alternative for the above need () is to run MIP6 on
MN, run UDP tunnel software from MIPv4 UDP NAT traversal (or maybe 6to4
IPv6-in-IPv4 software) and thus having IPv6-only HA infrastructure.  If
there is need for this I can write draft text for scenario, problem with
DS-MIPv6 solution addressing this scenario, and alternative implementation.

>> I don't think we need to work on continuous IPv4 apps running on MN
>>  - it's MIP4.
>> 
> 
> agree

Alex

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 14:00:44 +0300

> doesn't allow MN to be owned by a v6-only HA infrastructure.

understood and agree

thanks, marcelo

---

From: "Davis, Terry L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 14:27:28 -0700

Alexandru/Marcelo

That is certainly one option we will consider.

Transition time for aviation is measured in decades at least.  (We are
still running an OSI version from the late 80's.)

Take care
Terry

> From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 2:13 AM
> To: marcelo bagnulo braun
> Cc: Davis, Terry L; [email-masked]; Thierry Ernst
v6
DS-MIPv6