Hi Jari,

This looks good to me.

Margaret


At 06:34 PM 5/30/02 , Jari Arkko wrote:

>Follow-up to my own e-mail, after some off-line discussions.
>Here's an updated suggestion for the address resolution etc part:
>
>
>    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
>
>        Hosts must support Neighbour Solicitation and
>        Advertisement messages.
>
>        In GPRS and UMTS networks, some Neighbor Discovery
>        messaging can be unnecessary in certain cases.
>        GPRS and UMTS links resemble a point-to-point link;
>        hence, the host's only neighbor on the cellular
>        link is the defaul router that is already known
>        through Router Discovery. There are no link layer
>
>        addresses. Therefore, address resolution and next-hop
>        determination are not needed.
>
>Secondly, about alternative 1 for the advice to give for NUD.
>
>I've been asked to provide more details about the specific
>protocol layers, whether the tunnel and the payload stacks
>are the same etc. We'll send an e-mail about this tomorrow.
>
>Finally, for alternative 3 I have some updated text regarding
>what kind of advice to give:
>
>
>        The host must support neighbour 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 to provide
>        reachability confirmation when two-way IP layer
>        reachability can be confirmed (see RFC-2461,
>        Section 7.3.1). These confirmations will allow the
>        suppression of most NUD-related messages.
>
>        Host TCP implementation should provide
>        reachability confirmation in the manner
>
>         explained in RFC 2461, Section 7.3.1.
>
>
>        The use of UDP for many purposes in 3GPP
>        networks poses a problem for providing this
>        reachability confirmation. UDP itself is
>        unable provide such confirmation. Instead,
>        applications running over UDP should provide
>        the confirmation where possible. In particular,
>        when UDP is used for transporting RTP, the RTCP
>        protocol feedback should be used as a basis for
>        the reachability confirmation. If an RTCP
>
>         packet is received with a reception report block
>         indicating some packets have gone through, then packets
>         are reaching the peer. If they have reached the
>         peer, they have also reached the neighbour.
>
>        When UDP is used for transporting SIP, responses to
>
>        SIP requests should be used as the confirmation that
>
>         packets sent to the peer are reaching it.
>         The receipt of new non-retransmitted requests within
>         a SIP dialog should be used as a confirmation that
>         previous responses have reached the peer.
>
>Jari

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply via email to