 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry for the delay but here are some additional comments
-----Original Message----- From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:alexandru.petrescu at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 5:18 PM To: Tsirtsis, George Cc: mip4 at ietf.org Subject: Re: [Mip4] Working Group Last call for draft-ietf-mip4-dsmipv4-02.txt
:-)
Tsirtsis, George wrote:About implicit mode: Implicit mode, means that MIP signaling is NOT used to indicate the IPv6 addresses/prefixes for a given MN. How these address/prefixes are known by the MN and the HA is simply outside the scope of this specification. The MN can use DHCP prefix delegation, or HA and MN could be preconfigured with IPv6 prefixes, or some other mechanism that I do not know about may be used. There is nothing we need to say about any of this here.
I think what one needs in DSMIPv4 implicit mode is HA to hold a new table IPv4 HoA - IPv6 HoA. I don't think prefix delegation can offer
that association.
GT> Yes, but my point is that how it does this is entirely an implementation issue and there is no protocol work that needs to be done for it.
Ok...
About encapsulation methods: When IPv6 is tunneled to the MN's IPv4 HoA, you get IPv6-in-IPv4 i.e.,
For this IPv6-in-IPv4 - which RFC? rfc2529 (6over4 - IPv4 protocol 41)? Shouldn't this be referred to? You thought another?
GT> I think the obvious choice is RFC4213
Alex
-- 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/