>all nodes attaching to links within the NETLMM domain will have to follow >NETLMM defined behavior - I don't see how there can be a mix of nodes on the >network, some that obtain NETLMM services and some that don't. > > We need to be very careful about "NETLMM defined behaviour". In particular, what part of this behaviour is in the network and what is in the host. The value of a NETLMM solution depends in part on the host not needing to have specialized support for NETLMM. My ideal model of the solution is where the hosts are happily doing what they would be doing anyway (DAD, DNA, DHCP, etc) and the network makes sure that their globally routable addresses do not need to change unless you leave the entire network. This also makes it possible to deploy NETLMM on top of an existing, non-LMM link technology without having to update the mobile nodes in sync with the deployment. If we start to require changes in router discovery or other parts of the MN behaviour this causes complications.
(Having said that, I am not aware of the current documents in NETLMM proposing any deviations from the ideal model.) --Jari _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
