Hi Phil, > Maybe we should call it the cellular interfaces draft????
I think that would not be sufficient. Currently, there is no IPv6 hosts document. If there were one, this discussion would be shorter. I would suggest that some sort of hosts document is needed - it will be a big problem if many companies make devices with IPv6 that function poorly or badly. I would hope that our draft goes someway in ensuring some basic compliance when companies start adding IPv6 to mobile phones. This is a very real thing, most likely the IPv6 stack will not be very upgradable / configurable. > > 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. I feel that support for MIPv6 is important in the draft - at least some discussion of it, where it might be applicable, etc. for HMIP & FMIP, I'll leave it to the mobility experts to discuss it. John -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
