Basavaraj Patil writes: > The 802.16 group in IEEE made such a choice and design. So I really do not > know the reasoning why this mechanism was chosen. I don't know if it makes > sense to document here the reasons why IPv4 and IPv6 CS' are segregated, > because it is more of an L2 issue and this document is only specifying > operation over what has been defined at L2.
OK; knowing that the higher level classification is forced here is enough. > > In that case, my concern would be for interoperability. Having three > > or four ways to do something is much worse than having one. > > This has been raised as a concern previously as well (I believe there was a > draft by Bernard Aboba expressing concerns about this as well). At the > present time however IP CS is the default mode/CS for transporting IP and as > such is being built in base stations and hosts. GPCS is not complete yet. I see. It sounds to me like some sort of warning might be warranted. The point of IETF documents is to achieve interoperability, and if we know in advance that this could be problematic, I think we should mention that. In other words, include GPCS as a possible future consideration, alongside the separate Ethernet and VLAN CSes. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
