Subject: Re: [MOBILE-IP] Security Questions for Mobility in IPv6 Drafts

From: "Hesham Soliman (EPA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 19:27:42 +1000

In your previous mail you wrote:

   => I don't believe in a V6 <-> V4 translator with mobility support
   (for instance IPv4 source-routing is not available in the today
Internet
   for many reasons).

   I don't really understand what that means. Are you against
translators that
   support mobility ?

=> I am not against translators that support mobility, I just believe it
is not possible for a translator to support mobility (but we have to
define what is to support mobility too :-).

That's right, we need to define minimum level of support.
As you say translation of options is going to be really difficult.
I meant minimum support that allows an IPv6 MN to talk to an
IPv4 MN. That's actually fairly straight forward.

PS: in fact I've disliked translators since I proposed to use them for
TUBA. There are too many ugly little details and no good solution for
address translation. I prefer clean design like DSTM!

Well DSTM doesn't solve the same problem. If you have a small
device that can't have a dual stack then you need a translator.
I suppose that's getting beyond this list.
But anyway our solution combines both, translators and DSTM.
I'll look forward to the discussion in the NGTRANS meeting.