Re: Consensus call on making ID draft-wakikawa-nemo-v4tunnel a MIP6/NEMO WGs document

hi Sri,

Sri Gundavelli wrote:
>>
>>regarding Sri's concerns, we do intend to address them. dont
>>worry about that. we have an assumption in the draft.
>>
>>- the HA's IPv4 address is reachable through the IPv4 internet
>>
>>Sri is questioning this assumption. he is claiming this is
>>not so easy. he doesnt want IPv4 routing inside his IPv6
>>network. the HA is deep inside in the IPv6 network. for the
>>HA's IPv4 address to be reachable, you might need a box in
>>the DMZ, which traps the packets for the HA's IPv4 address
>>and tunnels them to the HA deep in the IPv6 network. but here
>>we end with extra tunneling between the box sitting in the
>>DMZ and the HA deep in the IPv6 network. another option is to
>>place the HA in the DMZ. but he doesnt want to do that. I
>>will be discussing with him to see how we can come up with a
>>solution. Sri, let me know if I still dont understand the
>>issue you are bringing up.
> 
> We need to agree on the most common scenarios that we need to
> address and so we need a problem statement. That should be the
> basis for defining a solution. Further, we need to have some
> gap analysis on each of the three present solutions and
> leverage some thing from them. I agree, we cannot afford to
> spend too much on that, but at the same time adopting a
> solution with out having an understanding of the deployment
> models is not right either.

here your concern is that we are not looking at enough scenarios.

so, you have two issues. 1) how to make the HA's IPv4 address
accessible through the IPv4 Internet and 2) we need to step back
and look at more scenarios.

I agree we need to address 1). and there are some solutions.
you havent responded to them in my mail. but for 2) I am afraid
you havent given any justification. draft-larsson has an
exhaustive catalog of all kinds of scenarios. please point to
the scenario which you think is important and we can take it
from there.

Vijay