> Erik Nordmark wrote: > > >>If there are decisions as to what to do with ND/DAD/whatever, > >>should those be made by (a) IPv6 WG, (b) 3GPP, or (c) > >>vendors? > >> > > > > Jari, > > > > I think the ND/DAD type issues can be dealt with by the > IPv6 over foo > > document which should be a lot quicker to produce than the > host requirements > > document. > > > True, but I guess I was more worried about the "whatever" part. > Looking at typical IPv6 over Foo documents, I would say ND, DAD, > PPP, and RFC 3041 issues fit those documents well. But what about > the rest?
I have a similar issue in mind. If we have an "IPv6 over Cellular links" draft would that also include some discussion on the rest e.g. security? That is, a security section specifically for cellular links? For example, when you use IPsec, IP header compression on the 3g link is not efficient and one of the results is higher packet loss. I guess this is something that the implementer should be told since it has to do with the specific link. Just trying to figure out what the options are and what would go in an eventual "IPv6 over Cellular links" draft. /Karim -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
