RE: [Mip4] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-tsirtsis-v4v6-mipv4-01.txt

["Tsirtsis, George" <tsirtsis at qualcomm.com>]

I am in fact interested in applying this to operator networks but there
are many different scenarios this applies to. The mechanism is the same
and it is generic, as it should be. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vijay Devarapalli [mailto:vijay.devarapalli at azairenet.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 6:45 PM
> To: Henrik Levkowetz
> Cc: mip4 at ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Mip4] FW: I-D ACTION:draft-tsirtsis-v4v6-mipv4-01.txt
> 
> Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> > Hi Vijay,
> >
> > on 2006-04-25 23:30 Vijay Devarapalli said the following:
> >> Henrik Levkowetz wrote:
> >>
> >>>> got it. the MIPv4 client is not being upgraded to
> >>>> IPv6, but the device connecting through it is being
> >>>> upgraded. this is a valid case where it might not
> >>>> be trivial to upgrade the MIPv4 client to MIPv6
> >>>> client. but is this the common case in an
> >>>> Enterprise? I expect laptops connecting directly to
> >>>> the Enterprise network instead of through cell
> >>>> phones. when the user is outside the Enterprise
> >>>> network, then the laptop might be connected to the
> >>>> Enterprise through a cell phone (through a cellular
> >>>> operator). but in this case MIPv4 might not be used.
> >>>> the MIP tunnel might be inside an IPsec tunnel.
> >>> More likely the MIP tunnel would go to the operator, while
> >>> any IPsec tunnel would be inside the MIP tunnel and go all
> >>> the way to the enterprise.
> >> I was under the impression that we are talking
> >> about MIPv4 inside an enterprise network and
> >> carrying IPv6 over MIPv4 inside the enterprise
> >> networks.
> >
> > I see this as a quite generic functionality, and haven't been
> > limiting this to MIPv4 inside an enterprise.  And especially
> > when MIP might be provided by one entity, (operator, maybe)
> > while another is rolling out IPv6 internally (enterprise,
> > maybe) it seems that the ability to carry IPv6 in MIPv4 makes
> > sense.
> 
> well, one of the justification that folks were
> using was an enterprise network that was using
> MIPv4 already and was deploying IPv6 services.
> this is what we were discussing and I was
> arguing it would be trivial to update the client
> and the home agent while updating the network
> for IPv6 services.
> 
> now talking about an operator using MIPv4 and
> wanting to carry IPv6 over MIPv4 tunnels, yes
> its possible. but does anybody want to do this?
> 
> Vijay
> 
> 
> --
> Mip4 mailing list: Mip4 at ietf.org
>     Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
>      Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
> Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/

--
Mip4 mailing list: Mip4 at ietf.org
    Web interface: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip4
     Charter page: http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/mip4-charter.html
Supplemental site: http://www.mip4.org/