Why?
jak
----- Original Message -----
From: "Narayanan, Vidya" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Bernard Aboba" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: "NetLMM WG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2006 1:25 PM
Subject: RE: [Int-area] Re: [netlmm] IPv6 addressing model,per-MN
subnetprefix, and broadcast domain
> I'd add that if the wireless nature of MN-to-AR interface is
> point-to-point (not Ethernet) then we do talk about one
prefix valid
> on that point-to-point link, and about one MN per one prefix; in my
> understanding.
PPP can support bridging and Ethernet bridges can assign
different VLANs per port.
So the scope of the broadcast domain really is orthogonal to
the link type.
This is certainly true. However, the point of VLANs is still completely
different from the point of providing a prefix-per-MN for purposes of
mobility management. For instance, the VLAN concept itself will be in
conflict with providing NETLMM services on the same network.
Vidya
_______________________________________________
netlmm mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netlmm
_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
