Re: Support for other protocols

["George Tsirtsis" <tsirtsis@googlemail.com>]

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:04 PM, marcelo bagnulo <marcelo@it.uc3m.es> wrote:
> George Tsirtsis escribió:
>
> > On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 6:15 PM, marcelo bagnulo <marcelo@it.uc3m.es> wrote:
>  >
>  >> Hi,
>  >>
>  >>  during the v6ops meeting, Dave (and maybe others) brought up an issue
>  >>  about the support for other protocols, like MIPv6, SCTP, DCCP and others.
>  >>
>  >>  Curerently the draft is phrased as follows:
>  >>
>  >>    I6: MIPv6 support
>  >>
>  >>    The translation mechanism SHOULD not prevent MIPv6 Route Optimization
>  >>    when the CN is a v4-only node
>  >>
>  >>
>  >
>  > GT> I am confused about this one. MIP6 RO requires the CN to
>  > participate in MIP6 signaling for the Return Routability tests. How
>  > would an IPv4 only node participate in such an IPv6 specific
>  > signaling?. This makes no sense to me.
>  >
>  Well, what people have suggested is that you can perform the RO to the
>  NAT64 box (i.e. the NAT64 perfomrs CN operations on behalf of the v4 node)
>

GT> I would think that in most cases the actual routing optimization
benefit from such an operation will be zero. IMO we should not even
bother.

>
>
>  > I was also thinking if any other MIP related scenario is worth
>  > considering here, e.g., MIP HA inside vs outside the NAT64. MIPv4 and
>  > MIPv6 protocols, however, are entirely incompatible so MIPv4 to MIPv6
>  > translation is not a realistic option as far as I can tell. My
>  > inclination is to just forget about Mobile IP and all its versions and
>  > denominations for now.
>  >
>  >
>  i am ok with that too
>

GT> OK :-)

>  Regards, marcelo
>
>
>  > George
>  >
>  >
>
>