Re: [Mip4] MIPv4/MIPv6-IPv4/IPv6 interaction bar-bof

[Henrik Levkowetz <henrik at levkowetz.com>]

Hi George,

On Wednesday, 25 Feb 2004, Tsirtsis George wrote:
> Henrik,
> 
> I am not entirely sure what some of the combinations implied below
> mean... like "IPv4 only node with MIPv6 and v6HA". Such combinations
> do not work and*do not need* to work. So, I either misunderstood your
> e-mail or the scope of the discussion is smaller than you imply.

You've misunderstood a bit. There's no implied "... only node" for the
first column in the table.  Turn it around, and suppose you have an
application in your dual-stack MN which will only talk IPv4, and what
you have is a MIP6 client and HA.  That's the "IPv4 with MIPv6 and v6HA"
case.  Sorry if the table was insufficiently clear.

[snip]

> The IESG asked us a while ago to write a problem statement on this,
> which we did (recently resubmitted), see
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-tsirtsis-dsmip-problem-02.txt.
> I would suggest people have a look at that and try to think if we have
> missed something in the problem statement. 

Yes, I saw that just recently but haven't had time to read it.
Was it announced on the mip4 list? I didn't notice it there...
(I also flag all drafts with -mip-, -mobileip-, -mip4-, -mip6- in the
name for reading, but this draft fell through there too... ,:)

Should be able to read it during the next couple of days.

> The BAR-BOF should as a minimum examine the problem statement and
> suggest additions/changes if required. Now, if we also figure out how
> much interest there is in the subject and which WG(s) is(are) going to
> take up any work that is required, that would be a result!

Yes.  The minimum result I would expect is that we mutually understand
the problem area and what needs different people have better after the
bar-bof.

	Henrik

> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: mip4-admin@ietf.org [mailto:mip4-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of
> > Henrik Levkowetz
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2004 1:33 AM
> > To: mip4@ietf.org; mip6@ietf.org
> > Cc: Pete McCann; Pekka Savola; Jonne Soininen; Basavaraj Patil;
> > Gopal Dommety
> > Subject: [Mip4] MIPv4/MIPv6-IPv4/IPv6 interaction bar-bof
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Proposal of a bar-bof
> > ---------------------
> > 
> > With the coming (we hope) of heterogenous deployment of IPv4 and
> > IPv6 access and transport networks, and Mobile Nodes with MIPv4 
> > and/or MIPv6
> > capability and IPv4 and/or IPv6 stacks, the question has been raised
> > of how to best run Mobile IP in such circumstances, and some
> > solutions has been proposed.  
> > 
> > The "trivial cases" of MIP4 carrying IPv4 in an all-IPv4 network,
> > and MIP6 carrying IPv6 in an all-IPv6 network are covered in the
> > MIPv4 and MIPv6 standards.  But by one way of counting, that still 
> > leaves about 6
> > combinations (14 if you count NAT-PT versions) which may occur in
> > practice which are not covered by the current standards.  A number
> > of drafts (some mentioned below) has been written, proposing
> > solutions to some of these cases.
> > 
> > Some cases may be handled without any additional MIP work if other
> > transition mechanisms such as e.g. ISATAP is available, but 
> > as a Mobile
> > Node may be expected to come across all conceivable kinds of visited
> > networks, it cannot rely on any particular other transition
> > mechanism being in place.
> > 
> > Below is a list of possible combinations of Host IP stack version,
> > MIP client/agent version and transport network IP version, followed
> > by a short summary of my understanding of where the current and
> > proposed solutions fit in.  There exist 8 similar combinations using
> > NAT-PT which are not explicitly listed here.
> > 
> > Which solutions will be needed? Which should we work on?  How much
> > interest does this have currently?  
> > 
> > We plan to hold a bar-bof in Seoul, to see how many show up, and
> > what kind of interest there is in this subject.  Place will be
> > announced on the lists Monday March 1st, and in the MIP4 and MIP6
> > sessions.
> > 
> > 	Henrik
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Table of MIP4/6-IP4/6 combinations:
> > ===================================
> > 
> > #	MN's		MIP		Access	Transpt	Short 
> > description
> > 	IP-stack	Client		Net	& HA if.	
> > ---	--------	------		------	-------	
> > -----------------
> > 1	IPv4		MIP v4		IP v4	v4	"native MIPv4"	
> > 2	IPv6		  "		  "	v4	"IPv6 in MIPv4"	
> > 
> > 3	IPv4		MIP v6		  "	v4	"IPv4 
> > in MIPv6 over IPv4"
> > 4	IPv6		  "		  "	v4	"MIPv6 
> > over IPv4"
> > 
> > 5	IPv4		MIP v4		IP v6	v6	"MIPv4 
> > over IPv6"
> > 6	IPv6		  "		  "	v6	"IPv6 
> > in MIPv4 over IPv6"
> > 
> > 7	IPv4		MIP v6		  "	v6	"IPv4 in MIPv6"
> > 8	IPv6		  "		  "	v6	"native MIPv6"
> > ---	--------	------		------	-------	
> > -----------------
> > 
> >   Variant 1 is the native IP/MIP combination for v4
> > 
> >   Variant 2 would be supported by the MIPv4 signalling 
> > extensions proposed in
> > 	    draft-tsirtsis-v4v6-mipv4-00.txt
> > 
> >   Variant 5 is known to be supported by an experimental 
> > thesis implementation
> > 	    and is fairly simple
> > 
> >   Variant 6 is known to be supported by an experimental 
> > thesis implementation
> > 	    and is fairly simple
> > 
> >   Variant 7 would be supported by the MIPv6 signalling 
> > extensions proposed in
> > 	    draft-soliman-v4v6-mipv4-00.txt
> > 
> >   Variant 8 is the native IP/MIP combination for v6
> > 
> >

Attachment: pgp00096.pgp
Description: PGP signature