Yes. If the scope is set to cellular networks, that would be fine. It is the larger generalization to the rest of the models that IETF generally caters for that I see some issues with.
Vidya > -----Original Message----- > From: Jari Arkko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 2:55 PM > To: Narayanan, Vidya; James Kempf > Cc: INT Area > Subject: Re: [Int-area] IPv6 addressing model, per-MN subnet > prefix, and broadcast domain > > Vidya, James, > > This gets me back to where Julien started this thread --- > whether it makes sense to have a link local scope larger than > the per node global prefix scope. > > We have talked about whether that breaks the addressing model > or not. (There may also be other technical issues to discuss. > What happens to link local communications when you move, for > instance?) > > But we should also talk about what the need is. One of the > potential targets for the NETLMM work is specific cellular > networks. If these networks employ p2p links, per node > prefixes, and generally do not use shared media services, the > question is if the WG wants to spend time designing something > that goes beyond this. Keep it simple unless you have a reason not to. > > --Jari > > Narayanan, Vidya wrote: > > >I don't believe that cellular type systems use any shared media > >functionality - they've already gone down to the path of p2p > links for > >various reasons. As I already said in a few of my earlier > emails, the > >prefix-per-MN model is inline with the cellular system operation. > > > > > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
