Subject: RE: [nemo] NEMOv4 vs DS-MIPv6

From: "Tsirtsis, George" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 15:51:05 -0700

Henrik,

If I understood what you are saying, your suggestion requires that
DS-MIPv6 runs on top of IPv4 tunnels...all the time. The MR also must
support IPv6 (so it can create DS-MIPv6 messages i.e., MIPv6 messages
with extensions). This might not be appropriate in the cases I described
earlier.

George
P.S.: BTW, Hesham is telling me that DS-MIPv6 spec does support IPv4
prefixes 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henrik Levkowetz [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 4:55 PM
> To: Tsirtsis, George
> Cc: [email-masked]; Thierry Ernst
> Subject: Re: [nemo] NEMOv4 vs DS-MIPv6
> 
> Hi George,
> 
> on 2006-05-10 17:51 Tsirtsis, George said the following:
> ...
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> > First of all I am not sure that DS-MIPv6 currently supports IPv4
network
> > prefixes allocation (maybe it should). But even if it does, what you
are
> > suggesting is that the network operator providing services to that
car
> > is IPv6 capable. Is it not clear to everyone that in most of the
world
> > this is still not the case?
> 
> Mmm??  I believe that is incorrect.  I don't see why the network
operator
> has to be IPv6 capable.  The only part in the network that has to be
> IPv6 is the home link, which can be virtual.  So you'll need a MIPv6
> HA, but the box it sits in doesn't even need a single physical
interface
> which has an IPv6 address.
> 
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> > NEMOv4 would be useful for network operators that support mobile
> > equipment (cars, trains, home routers or whatever) and that, for
> > whatever reason, do not support IPv6 but still want to support
network
> > mobility.
> 
> (As indicated above) I believe this doesn't hold.
> 
> > I really do not like the fact that lately, to do any IPv4 work in
the
> > IETF, we are getting pressured to release customer information and
> > deployment details. I will say the following which I hope will
satisfy
> > you:
> > We have a number of customers (network operators) in various parts
of
> > the world that have deployed our FLASH-OFDM system. This is
basically a
> > MobileIPv4 based cellular data system (search for Flarion press
releases
> > if you want specifics...and sorry for the commercial).
> >
> > Our customers would like to support network mobility. Some customers
> > would also like to move to IPv6 some day, which is why we proposed
> > DS-MIPv4 and DS-MIPv6 solutions. The two decisions, however, are not
> > related and should not have to be coupled.
> 
> Fine.  But nevertheless, NEMOv6 with DSMIPv6 will let you support
> network mobility without the operator having to support IPv6.
> 
> 
> 	Henrik

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 03:05:56 +0200

Hi George,

on 2006-05-11 00:51 Tsirtsis, George said the following:
> DS-MIPv6 runs on top of IPv4 tunnels...all the time.

Yes.  If your deployment scenario is 'no IPv6', it can do that.

> The MR also must
> with extensions).

Yes, that's right.

> This might not be appropriate in the cases I described
> earlier.

In *that* case you've got me, but I have to say that I have
a hard time understanding how it might be possible to put in
a new component with new NEMOv4 MR capability, but not a NEMOv6
MR.  The v6 MR doesn't require any surrounding IPv6 infrastructure,
either, so ... I have a hard time seeing how that restriction would
come into place.  Mind you, it might, but it's not obvious.

> P.S.: BTW, Hesham is telling me that DS-MIPv6 spec does support IPv4

Yes.

	Henrik

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 10:24:09 +0200

> P.S.: BTW, Hesham is telling me that DS-MIPv6 spec does support IPv4 

... where?  The draft only says MR should attach a prefixlen on the v4
HoA in a IPv4 hoa option.  Is there a way to communicate v4 MNPs that
are not related to the HoA?  Is it possible to specify several v4 MNPs?

In NEMOv6, there is a particular case where the HoA is derived from the 
MNP.  One would do same to support IPv4 moving networks: HoA derived 
from MNP should be a particular case, not the generic case.

IMHO, the draft does not seem to specify a Prefix Table for security
checks on the IPv4 MNPs.  Without it there are important security risks.
  Or?

Alex

> 
>> -----Original Message----- From: Henrik Levkowetz 
>> [mailto:[email-masked]] Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2006 4:55 PM
>>  To: Tsirtsis, George Cc: [email-masked]; Thierry Ernst Subject: Re:
>>  [nemo] NEMOv4 vs DS-MIPv6
>> 
>> Hi George,
>> 
>> on 2006-05-10 17:51 Tsirtsis, George said the following: ...
>>>> I'm not sure what your scenario is, and in which situation 
>>>> NEMOv4 support would be necessary. If someone argue that NEMOv4
>>>>  is
> necessary
>> has to be IPv6 capable.  The only part in the network that has to 
>> be IPv6 is the home link, which can be virtual.  So you'll need a 
>> MIPv6 HA, but the box it sits in doesn't even need a single 
>> physical
> interface
>>> solution. NEMOv4 would be useful for network operators that 
>>> support mobile equipment (cars, trains, home routers or whatever)
>>>  and that, for whatever reason, do not support IPv6 but still 
>>> want to support
> network
>>> mobility.
>>> IETF, we are getting pressured to release customer information 
>>> and deployment details. I will say the following which I hope 
>>> will
> satisfy
>>> you: We have a number of customers (network operators) in various
>>>  parts
> of
>>> Our customers would like to support network mobility. Some 
>>> customers would also like to move to IPv6 some day, which is why 
>>> we proposed DS-MIPv4 and DS-MIPv6 solutions. The two decisions, 
>>> however, are not related and should not have to be coupled.

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 10:27:58 +0200

Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
>> George P.S.: BTW, Hesham is telling me that DS-MIPv6 spec does
>> support IPv4 prefixes
> 
> Yes.

IPv4 MNPs (mobile network prefixes) only prefixing the HoA?  (the prefix
len is attached to the HoA only, in the IPv4 home address option).
There should be MNPs without any relation to HoA, no?

IPv4 MNPs without a Prefix Table in the HA for security checks?  Or do I 
have it wrong somehow again...

Alex

---

From: Keiichi SHIMA <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 17:38:30 +0900 (JST)

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nemo] NEMOv4 vs DS-MIPv6
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 10:24:09 +0200

> are not related to the HoA?  Is it possible to specify several v4 MNPs?

I think I raised the feature in the Vancouver meeting and I believe
authors incorporated the function to carry multiple v4pfxes in the draft.

The issue 57 is that proposal I raised, and it seems it had been accepted.
 
Maybe a short status report of this topic from the authors make your
question clear.

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

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 10:43:23 +0200

Keiichi SHIMA wrote:
> From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]> Subject:
> Re: [nemo] NEMOv4 vs DS-MIPv6 Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 10:24:09 +0200
> 
>> Tsirtsis, George wrote:
>>> P.S.: BTW, Hesham is telling me that DS-MIPv6 spec does support
>>> IPv4 prefixes
>> ... where?  The draft only says MR should attach a prefixlen on the
>> v4 HoA in a IPv4 hoa option.  Is there a way to communicate v4 MNPs
>> that are not related to the HoA?  Is it possible to specify several
>> v4 MNPs?
> 

Is the issue also supporting HoA _not_ derived from MNP?  And about 
extending the IPv6 Prefix Table to support IPv4 MNP related to IPv4 HoA?

Alex

---

From: Keiichi SHIMA <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 21:02:00 +0900 (JST)

# I think the subject should be changed is this discussion continues

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [nemo] NEMOv4 vs DS-MIPv6
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 10:43:23 +0200

> Is the issue also supporting HoA _not_ derived from MNP?

The issue doesn't explicitly mention it.  But I don't think it is
prohibited.

>                                                           And about 

What does this mean?  I don't understand why IPv6 prefix table have to
support IPv4 prefix...  (or are you talking about binding IPv6
prefixes to IPv4 HoA?)

---
Keiichi SHIMA

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 14:10:57 +0200

Keiichi SHIMA wrote:
> Re: [nemo] NEMOv4 vs DS-MIPv6 Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 10:43:23 +0200
> 
>>>>> P.S.: BTW, Hesham is telling me that DS-MIPv6 spec does 
>>>>> support IPv4 prefixes
>>>> ... where?  The draft only says MR should attach a prefixlen on
>>>>  the v4 HoA in a IPv4 hoa option.  Is there a way to
>>>> communicate v4 MNPs that are not related to the HoA?  Is it
>>>> possible to specify several v4 MNPs?
>>> I think I raised the feature in the Vancouver meeting and I 
>>> believe authors incorporated the function to carry multiple 
>>> v4pfxes in the draft.
>>> 

I'm not sure I understand.  The draft doesn't say at all that the BU can
carry an IPv4 MNP that is not prefixing the HoA as well.

The option in BU is named "IPv4 home address option".  It's difficult to
read it as a "IPv4 mobile network prefix" although technically speaking
the IPv4 home address option contains an address/prefix length.

>> And about extending the IPv6 Prefix Table to support IPv4 MNP 
>> related to IPv4 HoA?
> 
> What does this mean?  I don't understand why IPv6 prefix table have 
> to support IPv4 prefix...  (or are you talking about binding IPv6 
> prefixes to IPv4 HoA?)

No, talking about MR's IPv4 HoA - IPv4 MNP.

The LFNs run IPv4-only, there are MNP (moving network prefixes) in the
BU sent by MR to its HA.  In this case the MNP is IPv4.  HA should check
that MR (its IPv4 Home Address) is allowed to use that particular MNP.
This association is done in the prefix table.

The prefix table is specified for NEMOv6, contains associations IPv6 HoA
- IPv6 MNP.  For DS-MIPv6 should probably contain IPv4 HoA - IPv4 MNP,
just like NEMOv4 informational document does in its IPv4 Prefix Table.

The prefix table serves to avoid security attacks on re-directing the MNP.

Alex

---

From: Keiichi SHIMA <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 21:27:46 +0900 (JST)

Hi,

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: DS-MIPv6 technicals (waS: [nemo] NEMOv4 vs DS-MIPv6)
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 14:10:57 +0200

> the IPv4 home address option contains an address/prefix length.

I agree.  I think the best way is to write your proposed text to solve
the above confusion and put it in the issue tracker.

> This association is done in the prefix table.

I raised this problem as issue 59.
http://www.mip4.org/issues/tracker/mip6/issue59

Is this your concern?
 
---
Keiichi SHIMA

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 15:24:21 +0200

Keiichi SHIMA wrote:
> Re: DS-MIPv6 technicals (waS: [nemo] NEMOv4 vs DS-MIPv6) Date: Thu, 
> 11 May 2006 14:10:57 +0200
> 
>> I'm not sure I understand.  The draft doesn't say at all that the 
>> BU can carry an IPv4 MNP that is not prefixing the HoA as well.
>> 
>> The option in BU is named "IPv4 home address option".  It's 
>> difficult to read it as a "IPv4 mobile network prefix" although 
>> technically speaking the IPv4 home address option contains an 
>> address/prefix length.
> 
> I agree.  I think the best way is to write your proposed text to 
> solve the above confusion and put it in the issue tracker.

I am not sure I can write something in the issue tracker until the
authors of the document agree.  I think they are responsible for the
issue tracker, no?

>>> What does this mean?  I don't understand why IPv6 prefix table 
>>> have to support IPv4 prefix...  (or are you talking about binding
>>>  IPv6 prefixes to IPv4 HoA?)
>> The LFNs run IPv4-only, there are MNP (moving network prefixes) in 
>> the BU sent by MR to its HA.  In this case the MNP is IPv4.  HA 
>> should check that MR (its IPv4 Home Address) is allowed to use that
>>  particular MNP. This association is done in the prefix table.
> 

My concern is about the text there:
> for 4.3. Home agent operations:
> 
> IPv4 packets delivered to the home agent must be forwarded using the
>  bi-directional tunnel to the corresponding mobile node which has 
> registered the same IPv4 prefix of the delivered packets as an IPv4 
> mobile network prefix.  IPv4 packets received from the bi-directional
>  tunnel created between the home agent and a mobile node must be 
> forwarded based on the routing information of the home agent, if the
>  prefix is registered as one of IPv4 mobile network prefixes of the 
> mobile node.

I am thinking about writing specific text about Prefix Table.  Not about
"routing information of the home agent".  Prefix Table is described both
in NEMOv6 and NEMOv4.

>> if the prefix is registered as one of IPv4 mobile network prefixes 
>> of the mobile node.

The MNP in the Prefix Table is not "registered" as if it were inserted
there upon reception of the BU.  The MNP in Prefix Table is
pre-configured in the HA.  When HA receives BU from MR it checks the MNP
and HoA in the BU against the MNP and HoA already in the Prefix Table.

The only thing I'm suggesting is to have a section titled "Prefix Table
for DS-MIPv6" that says that the Prefix Table may contain IPv6 HoA -
IPv6 MNP pairs, or IPv4 HoA - IPv4 MNP pairs, or IPv4-mapped IPv6 HoA...
etc.  There may be need of agreement of what exactly to put in the
Prefix Table.

Alex