Andrew, Can we keep 3gpp architecture discussions OFF this list?
What we are talking about is an IPv6 host with a point-to-point link to a router. They run PPP and the router delegates a global prefix to the host. The router doesn't configure any address on the delegated prefix and it supports NS/NAs. I know the 3gpp specs well and that's the scenario that is portrayed. It's not an abnormal IPv6 scenario as is clear from above, so there's no "half right" stuff. Statements like yours just try to take away value from the effort that 3gpp and ietf have done so far to get 3gpp in line with IPv6. And they're not succeeding either. /Karim > -----Original Message----- > From: Delecki Andrew-Y10658 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: den 7 mars 2002 01:11 > To: 'Hesham Soliman (ERA)'; 'Charles E. Perkins'; Karim > El-Malki (ERA) > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Should DAD be optional? > [Wasdraft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00. txt -> wg last call?] > Importance: High > > > Dear Hesham, > > This what is in current 3GPP specifications, is not > necessarily the "right thing". > > Recommendation shall include the right network topology and > IPv6 mechanism, not deal with system, which is only "half" right. > > Andrew D. > > Motorola > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hesham Soliman (ERA) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 3:24 PM > To: 'Charles E. Perkins'; Karim El-Malki (ERA) > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Should DAD be optional? > [Wasdraft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00. txt -> wg last call?] > > > Hi Charlie > > I finally read the thread. > > > > I agree that it would be good to see some guidelines in an > > > informational doc. However I disagree on the title change to > > > IPv6 over cellular/3g. That is a different spec which we should > > > also work on. > > > > It is possible to design "cellular" systems where the > > 3GPP/PDP address assignment is completely replaced by > > localized, stateless methods. The way that addresses > > are assigned is not related to bandwidth, nor even to > > essential authorization issues. It's an artifact of > > near-compatibility with existing 2.5G layouts. GGSN > > does not NECESSARILY need to control this process. > > > > => That's fine, but we have to deal with what *is* > right now and not what *may come*. > There are people that want to roll out systems with > IPv6 support today, R&D will no doubt improve > things, but in this draft we need to deal with > the current specs. > > > Hesham > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
