> > 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. > > The point, I think, is that the network that is seen by the devices > atached to the terminal must support all features of an IPv6 network > so that any IPv6 hosts can function when their connectivity is > provided through such a terminal. (subject to the normal bandwidth, > delay, packet loss etc. constraints)
Agreed, being able to provide connectivity from the "terminal" to a generic v6 host behind it was always the aim. Overall I don't think that there is something preventing this in the cellular host draft if we reach agreement on the security sections. However if you're a basic standalone host with only a cellular interface that runs a specific set of apps then you should be free not to implement everything that a generic host has. That is also important to have in the draft and I believe that's what the cellular-interface-specific sections (e.g. 3gpp) are doing. /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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
