Hi Jari, On Tuesday 08 August 2006 23:54, Jari Arkko wrote: > Vidya, James, > > This gets me back to where Julien started this thread --- whether > it makes sense to have a link local scope larger than the per node > global prefix scope. > > We have talked about whether that breaks the addressing > model or not. (There may also be other technical issues to > discuss. What happens to link local communications > when you move, for instance?) > > But we should also talk about what the need is. One of the > potential targets for the NETLMM work is specific cellular > networks. If these networks employ p2p links, per node > prefixes, and generally do not use shared media services, > the question is if the WG wants to spend time designing > something that goes beyond this. Keep it simple unless > you have a reason not to.
So far the discussion on the list hasn't revealed a reason that would prevent (or increase the cost of) designing/running NetLMM on shared media. My personal opinion is that if we can do it then let's do it, it would be good to be link-layer agnostic, as called in the REQ draft. FWIW I remember that at least Pekka Savola asked that we keep WLAN in our scope. He proposed some text changes to the PS draft: > 3.1 Large Campus > > One scenario where localized mobility management would be > attractive is a large campus wireless LAN deployment. Having a > single broadcast domain for all WLAN access points doesn't > scale very well. Also, sometimes parts of the campus cannot be > covered by one VLAN for other reasons (e.g., some links are > other than 802.3). > > [...] Best, --julien _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
