Hi Craig, Comments in-line.
> Additionally, if the device is going to have multiple > identities (someone has used the Bluetooth Personal Area Network example) > all of these will be effectively going through the device that has the gprs > protocols, which means that it has taken on a sort of router function: Like > a home network with a router hooked up over a dialup connection? This part is left out of the document. It is concievable there there would be a device attached to the phone, and using the phone as a bridge, but we specifically used the word 'host' in the document in order to make it clear that the device is not a router. > -some elements of the gprs network were correctly considered a "given" for > this recommendation. Is there any reasonable opportunity to engage in other, > higher impact, longer term discussions about opportunities and applicability > of moving to a v6 core network (perhaps even engage in dialog on the > applicability of mobileipv6?). It seems to me that pdp contexts create kind > of a "circuit" in an otherwise packet switched network and ipng expertise > may be able to assist with information on how to apply ipv6 technology to > get the desired effects as 3GPP attempts to move to an IP core network. This document does not intend to modify any specifications - 3GPP or IETF - that is out of scope. > -some of the optimizations (e.g. DAD removal) will presumably not be > available in the case of the laptop connecting to a device where the device > acts just as a provider of the link layer unless the laptop protocol stack > is explicitly aware of the link technology? Is that true? There is some work going on to specify an 'IPv6 over 3GPP PDP Contexts' or something like that. This could be used by a laptop, for example. However, the recommendations in this draft are not meant to change default IPv6 behavior, and it is assumed that the implementations of IPv6 will contain the code for this behavior - but discusses the specific needs of the 3GPP addressing architecture and comments on some small optimizations to work with the 3GPP network. > -Would a way to avoid 3GPP appearing to be a special case to try to converge > it with PPP in its approaches? That might mean that solutions that apply to > ppp or gprs could be applied more generally to both and it might address > comments like: > > > > 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. > > > > As mentioned above, would it be fair to say stateless is only approximately > stateless since prefixes are being statefully distributed and there is only > one device using that prefix (or in more elaborate cases where there are > multiple addresses or devices that a single device is managing the > allocation within that prefix). I have sent a follow-up on this point, please check the text to see if it better clarifies the issue. thanks, John -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
