Re: [Mip6] [issue94] fixing encapsulation mechanism in IPv4 network

[Keiichi SHIMA <keiichi at iijlab.net>]

Hello Alex,

On 2007/03/21, at 1:03, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

> I agree only one encapsulation mechanism (for traversing IPv4) is  
> something useful, as opposed to implementing always two  
> encapsulating mechanisms.
>
> I'm not sure that UDP is the right answer for that.  IPv4-in-IPv4  
> mechanisms (without UDP) have their advantages: less packet  
> overhead. They have inconvenients that they should be mainly in  
> kernelspace (constraints).
>
> Would it be possible to have DS-MIPv6 implementation with one big  
> MIB knob that says:
> -use UDP for BU signalling, traffic encap and NAT traversal.
> or
> -use IPv4-in-IPv4 for BU signalling, traffic encap and NAT traversal.

It should work.  But what do you think about the idea to add a flag  
to specify the encapsulation mechanism in a binding update message as  
proposed in my mail to Hesham?  With the proposal, we don't need any  
manual configuration knobs and we can still use IPv*-in-IPv4  
mechanism, but allowing nodes that want to UDPv4 encapsulation only.

Regards,
---
Keiichi SHIMA
IIJ Research Laboratory <keiichi at iijlab.net>
WIDE Project <shima at wide.ad.jp>




_______________________________________________
Mip6 mailing list
Mip6 at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mip6