A couple of comments below for the benefit of the list. > Section 2.5.1:
> DAD is not an optional part of Stateless Address > Autoconfiguration, > > and it should not be considered optional for cellular hosts. > > If you really believe that DAD should be optional > for some link > > types, we need to re-visit the Stateless > Autoconfiguration spec. > > We should not just declare DAD to be optional here. >I think we (the authors) need to do some thinking on > this, as there >is the feeling that 2462 does not apply to the 3GPP > network, but >I guess you feel strongly that it does. > => Agree with John's comment. I'd like to add that this is not the authors' opinion, we used (in this section) the 3GPP specs which were modified based on the advice draft. > > > Section 2.7.1: > > > > > > > > The document says: > > > > > > > > "To avoid any duplication in link-local addresses > > > > between the TE and the GGSN, the MT must always > > reject other > > > > suggested interface identifiers by the TE. This > > results in the TE > > > > always using the interface identifier suggested by > > the GGSN for its > > > > link-local address." > > > > > > > > What does this mean? I thought that laptops would be able > > > > to generate privacy addresses using randomly allocated > > identifiers. > => Sure. This is still allowed when following the paragraph in the draft. The draft is referring to the PPP negotiation, which is concerned with the interface id for link local addresses only. There is no mandate to use the same iid for other scopes of adresses. So privacy is still preserved for addresses with scopes larger than the link scope. 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
