> > > true enough. but then you need the phone to act like an > IPv6 router. > > > > But what about if PPP is used? > > I don't immediately see how the choice of link-level > protocol changes this. > > Keith > > p.s. assuming this is a serial interface, PPP framing might > be a reasonable > choice. But PPP authentication, link negotiation, etc. (as > I have experienced > them, I admit I haven't followed the specs in recent years) > don't seem like > a good fit. for instance, would use of PPP restrict the > user to at most one > IP host attached to the phone? that would seem like an > overly restrictive choice.
No. The terminal (phone) doesn't need to act as a router to allow for multiple devices behind it to connect to the cellular interface. You could eventually have multiple serial connections to the terminal each having its own corresponding air interface connection. So it can act as a host (if you're running the IP stack + app on it) or as an L2 device (modem) for e.g. laptops behind it. That doesn't mean that there's no advantages in making it a router but it's not mandatory. Given that implementers need guidelines now, it's good if we only limit the scope to hosts for the moment and go onto routers once the first is complete. /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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
