I'd prefer dealing with what we have now first since I'd like to see v6 deployed in 3g in the near term. We could discuss for a long time on how to improve a certain cellular system and we probably all have our ideas but that discussion would not belong here.
Regarding the DAD issue, it's the same thing that can be done on any PPP link between a host and a router with prefix delegation. DAD can be disabled there, so no point of saying it can't be done in a cellular system that is the same as that PPP link from the IPv6 point of view. /Karim > -----Original Message----- > From: Charles E. Perkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: den 6 mars 2002 22:38 > To: Karim El-Malki (ERA) > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Should DAD be optional? > [Wasdraft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00.txt -> wg last call?] > > > Hello Karim, > > "Karim El-Malki (ERA)" wrote: > > > 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. > > Thus, any document which recommends that DAD or Neighbor > Discovery might be executed rarely if ever, would not fit > such "cellular" systems as I would hope eventually do > come about. > > Regards, > Charlie P. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
