Re: RE: Comments on draft-tsirtsis-dsmip-problem-01.txt

Pekka Savola wrote:
>>> If you wanted a tunnel setup protocol, you would not need MIP in 
>>> the first place, just dynamic VPN mechanism.
>> 
>> => Like what ?? MIP sets up tunnels dynamically between the MN and 
>> HA (v4 and v6) and any-to-any (MIPv6 RO).
> 
> 
> If you just wanted MN<->HA communication, all you would need is a VPN
>  which updates your care-of address to the HA regularly.  RO is the 
> thing that sets it apart.  I would not call MIPv6 RO a tunnel, and it
>  is not parcticularly useful in this context as the transport is 
> heavily IPv6-specific.

Sorry for interfering, me too risking to trivialize and loose sight, I
would summarize Mobile IPv6 behaviour as dynamic tunnel setup and RO and
also proxy ND.

With respect to dual-stacks, the thing I'd like to have is the Mobile
IPv6 MN-HA tunnel to be a v6-in-v4 tunnel instead of v6-in-v6, and
moreover that tunnel to drill through the NAT gateway, and even stay up
when applications are silent (heartbeats bubbling or such).  This would
allow an IPv6 mobile host to attach to an exclusively-v4
public-access-private-address ISP, and then to another, while
maintaining a fixed IPv6 Home Address.  By my reading, the draft already
covers this case, so I don't complain.

Alex
GBU