Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 23:08:56 +0300
From: Jari Arkko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| But I can see that it can be interpreted the other
| way. How about the following:
How about you include this ...
| 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.
But stop there (and s/defaul/default/ of course).
ND (for link address discovery) is only ever necessary when the link
address isn't known - there's no real need to emphasize that point,
and by so doing, perhaps lead people to infer things that are not
really intended.
It's also worth noting of course, that RA messages aren't required
to carry the link level address (in general anyway, perhaps for 3GPP
you are mandating that?)
If the link level address isn't there, ND would be required to find
it, wouldn't it?
kre
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
