John,
Please see my comment below. => Actually it seems to me that the solution in the draft is a lot simpler than the one in the current 3GPP specs, but I might have missed something that concerned you ? I agree. The solution in the draft is simpler however at the expense of what I view as being a wasteful implementation. The draft proposes /64 being allocated to each mobile device at a minimum and problably multiple /64s. This would be perfectly acceptable if each mobile device was a mobile router supporting mobile subnets - but in 3GPP that is not the case, a mobile device is a host and in many cases the hosts may have very basic functionalities. => I understand that it seems wasteful, however, according to the calculations in section 7.3.1 of the draft, we can afford to trade off the efficiency of address allocation for simplicity. To my knowledge, nothing in the 3GPP specifications prohibits a UE from being a router. Granted that currently, it seems that UEs are not heading that way, but why not have a mechanism that allows the UE to be a router _if_needed_ in future. You could probably argue that there might be more efficient mechanisms, but when we consider the limitation of not wanting to significantly impact the 3GPP specs, this solution seems reasonable. The working group should provide guidance on whether such a solution is something they are comfortable with being recommended to 3GPP. => That's what we�'re doing now :) Regards, 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
