> > If WLAN works differently from a cellular interface then it > needs separate consideration (maybe another draft). So this > draft wouldn't apply to interfaces for which cellular > requirements are not meaningful. But I'm not sure that > defining multiple technology hosts is the most urgent bit of > the work. I'd be mostly interested in seeing a document which > describes what needs to be implemented in the very short run > i.e. basic 3gpp v6 hosts. So it makes sense to me that the > document concentrate on these and then get updated later > if/when new requirements appear. 3gpp has an urgent need and > wants to deploy IPv6 so it's a good idea to provide guidance > to implementors through the cellular hosts draft.
Maybe we should call it the cellular interfaces draft???? > > Regarding Mobile IPv6, were you proposing that Mobile IP not > be considered in the cellular hosts document if we are only > describing requirements for basic cellular hosts and no > multiple-technology devices? There are two issues - one is that it's not done, but hopefully soon, and two that it implies multiple interfaces at this point because at least in the 3gpp case it's not being considered for mobility management within the cellular network. But having the capability there seems important and I would be hesitant to take it out. It's probably wise to drop the references to HMIP and fast handover as those are still some distance from standardization. > > /Karim > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
