Subject: [Mip6] Consensus call on DS-MIP6 issue 73 (IPv4 CoA in the BU)

From: Basavaraj Patil <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 16:28:19 -0500

Hello,

I would like to get consensus from the WG on another DS-MIP6 issue
which is pending resolution.

The issue is about how to include the IPv4 CoA of the MN in the
binding update. 

The choices are:

1. Keep the IPv4 mapped address in the source address field when
   sending the BU 

2. Remove the IPv4 mapped address from the src address of the BU and
   replace it with the Home address. The IPv4 care-of address will be
   included in a new IPv4 alt-CoA option.

Please express your opinion and preference (a brief justification of
why would be useful but not required) by Thursday, April 12th 07.

The issue has been noted and is in the tracker at:
http://www.mip4.org/issues/tracker/mip6/issue73

-Basavaraj

_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6

---

From: Vijay Devarapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:43:45 -0700

Hi Raj,

Can't we conclude on this issue based on the discussion so
far on Issue 73? There has already been a lot of discussion
on this issue. This seems to be yet another consensus call
on this subject.

Vijay

---

From: "Pascal Thubert \(pthubert\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2007 09:39:02 +0200

Hi Raj:

My vote is 1, keep the IPv4 mapped address. Some time ago, the design
team elected Hesham's draft as base and that was one of its main
features. I do not see a value in changing anything at this point.

When I implemented an early draft of ipv4 traversal, I found that the
mapped address allowed me to limit the changes in the base HA code.
OTOH, adding a new option is new code and new test on existing
implementations, and we have to describe (and code for) the cohabitation
of options which might not be compatible. 

Pascal

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Basavaraj Patil [mailto:[email-masked]]
>Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 11:28 PM
>To: Mobile IPv6 Mailing List
>Subject: [Mip6] Consensus call on DS-MIP6 issue 73 (IPv4 CoA in the BU)
>
>
>Hello,
>

---

From: Conny Larsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 08:45:20 +0200

Hi Raj:

My vote is 1, keep the IPv4 mapped address. I read Hesham's draft
when it was submitted and I have then partly followed the discussion
about how to include the IPv4 CoA of the MN in the binding update.
I believe the original idea is fine.

Regards
Conny

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 11:05:35 +0200

Hi,

I definitely prefer 2.  Explicit is better than implicit; we should
use an explicit IPv4 address option to carry the IPv4 CoA.

(I believe the formulation of 2. confuses things a bit by labelling
this an 'alt-CoA' option -- it's simply an IPv4 CoA option.)

	Henrik

---

From: "Hesham Soliman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Apr 2007 21:34:55 +1000

> this an 'alt-CoA' option -- it's simply an IPv4 CoA option.)

=> I hope this is only a terminology confusion and not a deeper
misunderstanding. But since I heard this comment a couple of times I want to
make sure that everyone understands that the sole purpose of this option (in
alt 2 below) is to indicate to the receiver that it includes the CoA and
therefore the src address MUST NOT be assumed to include the CoA. Because in
alt 2 below the src address in the IPv6 packet is the HoA. This is identical
to the purpose of the Alt-CoA option. The only difference between the two is
that one carries an IPv4 address and the other carries an IPv6 address. I
don't care what that option is called as long as the purpose is understood.

Hesham

---

From: Henrik Levkowetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2007 14:04:35 +0200

on 2007-04-08 13:34 Hesham Soliman said the following:
> I hope this is only a terminology confusion and not a deeper

Agreed for the logic.  I'd prefer the option to be called something like
'IPv4-CoA'.

	Henrik

---

From: Wassim Haddad <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:52:54 +0300 (EEST)

Hi Raj,

My vote is 1: keep the IPv4 mapped address in the source address field
when sending the BU.

Regards,

Wassim H.

---

From: Keiichi SHIMA <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 22:29:45 +0900

Hello,

> why would be useful but not required) by Thursday, April 12th 07.

I vote 2.

The IPv4 mapped address is designed as an application interface for  
the legacy IPv4 applications to adapt to IPv6 with minimal change of  
its code, and I believe it is better to limit the usage to that purpose.

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

---

From: "Hesham Soliman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2007 23:45:06 +1000

I prefer 1 as well.

Hesham 

 > From: Wassim Haddad [mailto:[email-masked]] 
 > Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 5:53 PM
 > To: Basavaraj Patil
 > Cc: Mobile IPv6 Mailing List
 > Subject: Re: [Mip6] Consensus call on DS-MIP6 issue 73 (IPv4 
 > CoA in the BU)
 > 
 > Hi Raj,
 >