From: Pekka Savola (pekkas_at_no.spam)
Date: Sun Mar 24 2002 - 11:19:00 PST
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, changwen wrote:
> > > and whose MIPv6 home agent has no IPv4 address roams into IPv4 domain,
> > > e.g. with ongoing IPv6 sessions to some other IPv6 nodes, and how we
> > > correctly route packets destined to and originated from the MNv6.
> > >
> > > Is
> > > that a real and important problem? Yes.
> >
> > Disagree.
> >
> > > Should people care on how to
> > > make MNv6 continue functioning in the IPv4 domains? Yes.
> >
> > Also disagree.
> >
> > If MIPv6 HA has no IPv4 address, it seems ludicurous to think that its
> > MN's would need to worry about IPv4.
> >
>
> Now I think you get the question raised in my draft. My draft adds the new
> capability to such MNv6s so they can continue functioning in IPv4 domains.
That can already be done AFAICS.
> On the question of why such MNv6s need to worry about IPv4, the fundamental
> question is whether we should limit the freedom of such MNv6s unreasonbaly
> and whether we should support ubiquitous computing/roaming? I think the
> answer should be obvious.
Disagree: the solution comes with a terrible price.
The link to the paper Tim sent on the list would make one assume that IPv4
connectivity can be enabled with more ease for MNv6's.
The case that HAv6 would not be able to operate with IPv4 addresses is not
a case we need to worry about IMO.
Please define 'roaming' exactly.
-- Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri Oct 06 2006 - 00:00:32 PDT