> 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,
In the case of the terminal being an L2 device like a modem
and the IP device being a laptop there might be some care.
For instance, the laptop IPv6 stack might follow the specifications and
use NUD over that PPP link.
This requires that the 3G devices in the network actually support NUD
over the PPP link.
While the draft claims it scope is about the cellular hosts
I wouldn't be surprised if some folks read the MAY and conclude
that they don't need to implement it at the first hop IPv6 router.
So I wonder if it makes sense to make this more clear in an IPv6-over-3G
document which would say
hosts MAY implement sending of NUD messages
routers MAY implement sending of NUD messages
routers MUST implement processing NUD messages (unicast NS messages)
hosts ??? implement processing NUD messages
Such careful statements would make sense that things would always interoperate.
Erik
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
