Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Mobile Wireless Internet Forum

From: "BINAR, Simon" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 11:49:34 -0000

| >Their goal is not protocol design. Their goal is to come up with an
| >architecture that will be used for 3rd generation cellular
| networks, and some
| >of us are making sure that Mobile IP is the mobility protocol used.
|
| Good glad to hear it.  We need some common sense here.
| TCP/IP should be
| the vehicle to bring us to the next generation of distributed
| computing
| ergo mobility not non-ietf fixes.
|
| Of course I think you should do it with IPv6 and just bypass IPv4
| completely.  IPv6 mobility is far superior in its capabilities.

Questions:
- Many mobile operators will already have some form of IPv4 networks.
How do you evolve these networks towards IPv6, ensuring that mobility
can consistently be supported over both IPv4 and IPv6 platforms? Or do
you support mobility only over the small IPv6 portion, and gradually
increase "mobility coverage" as the IPv4 platform is being replaced by
the IPv6 one? Would this second approach be satisfactory to operators
and users alike?

- How do you support "legacy" IPv4 terminals in a MIPv6 cellular
network? (I don't think requiring the terminals to upgrade will be
acceptable in every case)

- Should terminals roaming between legacy IPv4 and next-generation IPv6
mobile networks be required to implement both the IPv4 and IPv6, and
MIPv4 and MIPv6 protocol stacks? What impact would such a requirement
have on those terminals (e.g., handheld devices) that by definition have
a limited amount of processing capabilities and memory?

- How do you suppport non-MIP terminals (e.g., both 2G and "first
generation" 3G terminals)?

I also think that MIPv6 is a nice thing to have, but do we have answers
to these questions? I think answers would be quite important, otherwise,
it might be difficult to convince operators to go straight away for
MIPv6... Or are these issues not important to operators??

Simon

|
| thx
| /jim
|

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 17:39:12 -0500

Note above I stated really don't even to IPv4 for 3GPP.
So I am assuming with my answers below IPv4 is legacy pre 3GPP for this
discussion.

>- Many mobile operators will already have some form of IPv4 networks.

Agreed.

>the IPv6 one? Would this second approach be satisfactory to operators

I can't speak for operators OK I can only speak as an engineer who
builds products.  But there will be a transition set of problems for
legacy equipment but I would hope that if 3GPP moves to IPv6 then it
would treat the IPv4 legacy environment as a place to tunnel thru.
We should identify that equipment that will exist at the point 3GPP
begins deployment?

What I am suggesting is that the various forums assume IPv6 for the
addresses for all 3GPP mobile nodes first of all.  When mobile hits the
Internet pipe from the Celluar world it will run into IPv4 and that is
where tunnels and other v6 trans mechanisms would be used to get to the
recipient (e.g. home agent, hlr, CN, mobile web servers).  But within the
Celluar infrastructure IPv6 is assumed.  So 3GPP would be deployed gradually
as it became available along side the pre-3GPP infrastructure until it
replaced the IPv4 old parts.  Celluar mobility has the advantage that we
don't have for existing non-mobile Internet users and that is, it is not
widely deployed ( I am speaking here of MNs that have the capability to
access data (content) via 3GPP).

So after all that yes the idea is to replace Ipv4 equipment with Ipv6
equipment.  The business benefits must support this for sure and that
is not my forte, and I plead ignorance in this space.

>acceptable in every case)

If they cannot be upgraded with an IPv6 they have to be replaced. I
personally will not advocate to any customer to use a NAT with IPv4
equipment for Mobility.  They loose all the benefits of IPv6 without an
IPv6 stack. But I think we may be talking new parts with 3GPP anyway.

>a limited amount of processing capabilities and memory?

No only the new ones.  When they roam and begin execution in the IPv4
network they use IPv4.

>generation" 3G terminals)?

If they cannot upgrade to MIP6 then they don't participate in MIPv6.

>MIPv6... Or are these issues not important to operators??

I think also are these answers important to the vendors in their markets
but clearly we need to have more discussion.

I will tell you one thing.  If a department deploys IPv6 servers in
their network and IPv6 clients and an ISV upgrades their application to
take advantage of Ipv6 parts the legacy IPv4 nodes can't take advantage
of the new features of IPv6 apps unless they can upgrade to IPv6 too.
This is a hard line and reality with most new technology.

regards,
/jim

---

From: Gabriel Montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 14:58:00 -0800

> access data (content) via 3GPP).

i agree, wireless is a natural for v6 cuz most of the time deployment
is already planning on having some sort of proxy or intermediate system
between the wireless cloud and the general internet. i'm not talking about
laptops that happen to connect wirelessly, i'm talking about the much
more numerous phone-like devices. imposing a proxy may
have other architectural consequences, but it does provide a natural
location for the v6/v4 interface function. certainly worth exploring.

-gabriel