Hi Margaret,
> > "2.4 RFC2461 - Neighbor Discovery for IPv6
> >
> > Neighbor Discovery is described in [RFC-2461]. This
> > specification is a mandatory part of IPv6.
> >
> > 2.4.1 Neighbor Discovery in 3GPP Networks
> >
> > In GPRS and UMTS networks, some Neighbor Discovery
> > messages can cause unnecessary traffic and consume
> > valuable (limited) bandwidth. GPRS and UMTS links
> > resemble a point-to-point link; hence, the host's
> > only neighbor on the cellular link is the default
> > router that is already known through Router Discovery.
> > Therefore, while the host must support Neighbor
> > Solicitation and Advertisement messages, their use
> > in address resolution and next-hop determination is
> > not necessary and the host may choose to not initiate
> > them.
>
> I don't think that we should include the last sentence of
> this paragraph.
Can you detail what your objection to the last sentence is?
> 2.4.1 Neighbor Discovery in 3GPP Networks
>
> The host must support the Neighbor Solicitation and
> Advertisement messages for neighbor unreachability
> detection as specified in [RFC-2461].
>
> In GPRS and UMTS networks, it is very desireable to
> conserve bandwidth. Therefore, hosts stacks used in
> these environments should include a mechanism in
> upper layer protocols (such as TCP) to provide
> reachability confirmation when two-way reachability
> can be confirmed (see RFC-2461, section 7.3.1).
> These confirmations will allow the suppression of
> most NUD-related messages.
My feeling is that upper-layer protocols are out of scope of
this document, and I am uncomfortable making a recommendation on
including them in this document. I think that it would be possible
to say that, when available, these mechanisms can be used,
something like this:
In GPRS and UMTS networks, some Neighbor Discovery
messages can cause unnecessary traffic and consume
valuable (limited) bandwidth. GPRS and UMTS links
resemble a point-to-point link; hence, the host's
only neighbor on the cellular link is the default
router that is already known through Router Discovery.
Additionally, upper-layer protocols can provide
reachability confirmation when two-way reachability
can be confirmed (see RFC-2461, section 7.3.1).
These confirmations allow the suppression of
most NUD-related messages. Therefore, while the host must
support Neighbor Solicitation and Advertisement messages,
their use in address resolution and next-hop determination is
not necessary and the host may choose to not initiate
them.
> [If there are any upper-layer 3GPP protocols that can
> provide reachability confirmation, meeting the definition
> in the ND spec, we should mention them here.]
I don't have the 3GPP documentation in front of me, perhaps one of the other
authors can comment here.
> Please note that the IPv6 specs consistenly misspell neighbour as
> "neighbor" :-). We should also use that spelling in this
> specification.
Actually, Neighbour is the correct spelling in British English,
so I would not classify it as a misspelling (I think that several
of the authors of the document have been taught British English).
However, we should be consistant in the document.
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
