Hi,
thanks for the comments. I think this document is trying to
do too much.
It seems like a document focussed on recommendations for implementors
of IP v6 in devices for 3gpp networks could useful right away (or at
least one hopes). It could be split into sections for devices that would
only operate in a 3gpp network and devices that would operate in a 3gpp
network and other networks. This would assume some knowledge of the
standards as they exist today.
I think there is room for another document that provides recommendations
for the use of IP v6 in 3g networks. The 3gpp standards will continue to
evolve and the more IPv6 that is present in them, the more guidance about
how
to make the best use of it might be appreciated. 3gpp2 is still very
nascent
from my understanding and would also be a customer for such a document.
There is good material for both of these kinds of customers in the
existing
document and material that would go in both, but I think focussing a little
more would be helpful to the readers and also in moving the documents
forward
quickly.
Phil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hesham Soliman (ERA) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2001 12:31 PM
> To: 'Phil Roberts'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Proxy announcement !
>
>
> Hi Phil,
>
> I'm not an "official" author of the draft but let me
> address a couple of your points below in addition to
> John's comments.
>
> > 1. What is the intention of this document? If it is
> purely guidelines for
> > implementors it
> > should probably be redone as guidelines for implementors of
> IP v6 nodes in
> > 3gpp networks. If
> > it's input to SDOs there needs to be some rework
> identifying recommendations
> > that are
> > different from what has already been done or is being
> considered. The
> > document doesn't seem
> > to work well for either as written. This document has a lot of good
> > material for both but
> > seemed to go back and forth between the two goals.
> >
> => The intention was to address the implementation requirements
> for IP cellular hosts, so that excludes GSM terminals
> for example.
> The intention was not to make it specific to 3GPP since
> most of the
> reasons behind the requirements are not 3GPP specific. These are
> the ones mentioned in the introduction (limited power,
> BW, memory ...etc).
> However, since 3GPP is the only system currently mandating
> IPv6 in the architecture, in some cases exception were made
> for such architecture. By exception I mean evaluating whether
> a certain function is needed i such architecture. Of course
> the same can be done in future for other architectures
> mandating
> IPv6.
>
> > 2. For each of the above is the intention to educate the
> SDOs or the IETF?
> >
> => Cellular hosts implementors mainly ;)
> Interoperability is necessary and we wanted to make
> sure there is
> some kind of agreement on the implementation requirements
> as well as make sure nothing new will break the existing IPv6
> standards.
>
> > 3. A decision probably needs to be made about what kind of
> host is being
> > considered. Again
> > sometimes it seems the text is for hosts that will operate only in a
> > cellular network and
> > sometimes for hosts that will operate between a cellular
> network and another
> > kind of network.
> > The requirements for these two kinds of hosts could be
> quite different.
> >
> => The functionality requirement is scenario-based. For
> example a host
> with more than one interface (in a 3GPP network) will need to
> implement more of the MIPv6 spec than a host with a
> certain interface.
> Rather than limiting that host architectures, the
> intention was to go
> through each function and mention when it is a MUST,
> SHOULD or MAY
> depending on the use case.
> But maybe that should be clarified a bit more in the doc. ?
>
> > 4. I think there was some concern at the interim meeting
> about the apparent
> > 3gpp intent to
> > limit cellular devices 1) to a single global address and 2)
> to being a host
> > and having no
> > possibility for a router function.
> >
> => I'm not sure if the draft has anything related to
> this particular
> point. The 3GPP architecture may of course change to fix
> these limitaitons above (I certainly hope so), but I don't see
> that these particular cases will impact the draft.
>
> Thanks,
> Hesham
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
