Subject: [mobile-ip] IPv6 over Mobile IPv4

From: Pete McCann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2001 17:39:15 -0500

Hi,

We (Pat Calhoun, Tom Hiller, and myself) recently wrote a draft
describing a method for running IPv6 traffic while using Mobile IPv4
signaling for mobility management and security.  We submitted it today
to internet-drafts; you can find an advance copy at:

http://www.diameter.org/draft-mccann-mobileip-ipv6mipv4-00.txt

Basically, this could serve as an interim solution while we wait for
all of the Mobile IPv6 security work to converge.  It would allow us
to use the existing Mobile IPv4 security model, including AAA, for
securing registration requests, while providing IPv6 service to
dual-stack mobile nodes.  It may also help ease the overall transition
to IPv6 because it only requires IPv6 support in the MN, FA, HA, and
home network, while the network between the FA and HA could be a
legacy IPv4 cloud.

The draft itself is fairly straightforward; we would appreciate
comments on the list and would like to see if there is interest in
making this a working group item.

-Pete

---

From: Gopal Dommety <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 12:12:48 -0700

Pete, Pat, and Tom,

Good idea..... In the past, the LMA draft 
(draft-dommety-mobileip-lma-ipv6-02.txt) talked about doing similar thing.
  Following is an excerpt from the draft:

B)  Inter-network mechanism between  IPv6 and  IPv4: LMAs  provide the
option of  establishing either an  IPv6 tunnel or IPv4  tunnel between
the HA and LMA, depending  on the network.  This enables the operation
of Mobile IPv6 over the existing Internet, which is predominently IPv4
and will most likely evolve gradually to IPv6.

This was one of the three main motivations for LMA draft.

Thanks
Gopal

---

From: Pat Calhoun <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 20:17:05 -0700

> This was one of the three main motivations for LMA draft.

Interesting. I don't remember seeing supporting protocol details, so 
obviously missed this feature of LMA.

PatC

---

From: Tom Hiller <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 11:00:19 -0500

Gopal,

Thanks for your note on the tunneling similarities between LMA and our draft.
The motivation of our draft is as an interim solution while MIPv6 converges. A
major difference between the LMA draft and what we've proposed is that LMA
assumes MIPv6 and we do not. 

thanks,
Tom

PS I was having email problems - this email may be redundant