Hi all, I think we're having a pretty useful discussion about this draft which has highlighted a number of issues that need to be addressed. This is an attempt to summarise the issues that were discussed and see if we can find a way forward.
Please note, this is not to suggest 1, 2 or 3 drafts ...etc, this is an attempt to resolve the technical issues first, editing them in documents is another issue that can be handled after we agree on what we're going to put in such documents. Before I list the issues and responses, I'd like to highlight an important point: This draft attempts to do 2 things: - Define the behaviour of a cellular host residing on a cellular link (in this case we only know of 3GPP networks because no one else has defined the use of IPv6 in their specific link) - List the host implementation requirements in a cellular network (not only 3GPP) based on the common characteristics of these networks (p2p channels, BW, resilience over the air interface ...etc) Perhaps the two points above can be separated in 2 documents, but I'm really interested in getting an agreement on the technical issues _first_. Editorial issues are secondary here. So the main issues that were brought up so far are (please let me know if I missed a major issue): Issue: What is a cellular host ? Suggestion: A cellular host is _any_ host that has a cellular interface. This would include low end devices like basic phones and high end devices like laptops. Low end devices will generally follow the behavioural aspects of the draft as well as the minimum implementation requirements, due to the lack of computing capacity. However, high end devices will implement whatever they want, but MUST follow the required behaviour _on_the_cellular_ interface. Please note that when it comes to implementation requirements, the draft never suggests that a standard MUST NOT be implemented, so everyone is free to implement more. The draft aims at the minimum, interoperable implementation. Issue: The use of the word 'terminal' is confusing. Suggestion: replace 'terminal' with Host. This was a mistake anyway. Issue: Should DAD be disallowed Answer: DAD for the general cellualar case is allowed in the draft. In the 3GPP-sepcific case, DAD is not needed because: - The link is p2p - The link-local address is given to the cellular host (it can't reject it). - A /64 is given to the cellular host _only_ - The GGSN will ensure the uniqueness of llA and will not use the host's /64 to configure any of its global addresses. The same goes for site-local if used. So DAD is not needed. This is analogous to a design decision to always assume an MTU of 1280, PMTU implementation becomes superfluous if the host will _never_ send a packet larger than 1280. I think we should close this issue unless someone points out a flaw above. Issue: Should IPsec be mandated? Suggestion: We should mandate AH and ESP for all hosts, following RFC2460. Issue: Should ND be mandated? Answer: ND is mandated in the draft. Certain options are not mandated on cellualar links (like LLA suboption) because it's not relevant. NUD is a MAY because there are other ways of detecting reachability in these links. If multiple default routers exist RSs and RAs will detect the failure of one of those routers. Issue: Stateless address autoconfig (2462) allowed? Answer: Yes it's allowed for the general cellualr case. However for the 3GPP case stateless address allocation works differently from RFC2462 (and does not break 3041), so come parts of RFC2462 are not relevant (the DAD part again!) Comments so far? Are these suggestions/answers accepatable? It took me 2.5 hours to write this email because of my wonderful mail server, so I probably won't be able to give quick responses. Hesham -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
