Subject: RE: Should connecting to the Internet be Optional?

From: Phil Roberts <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 15:17:41 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karim El-Malki (ERA) [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 3:14 PM
> To: 'Phil Roberts'; 'Tony Hain'; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: Should connecting to the Internet be Optional?
> 
> 
>  > Having read through this thread now, might it be better to
>  > recast this document more along the lines of functions
>  > supported on the cellular interface rather than 
> requirements  > for host?  Some substantial number of devices 
> for which this  > is targeted will be dual network interface 
> capable and for the  > other interface some of these 
> optimizations don't make sense.  > 
>  > The Mobile IPv6 related specifications for the time being
>  > only make sense with such a dual network interface capable
>  > device, which means the optimizations recommended on the 
> cell  > facing interface in many cases SHOULDN'T be 
> recommended on  > the other interfaces.
> 
> The cellular host requirements draft is only aimed at minimum 
> cellular host functionality. So if a host has a DSL interface 
> this draft doesn't apply to it. I believe this is already an 
> assumption of the current draft. If instead you have multiple 
> wireless interfaces it would apply.

But if your multiple wireless interfaces include something like
WLAN it needs to be spelled out which of these recommendations
apply to which interfaces.  No?

> /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-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Jari Arkko" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 22:39:21 +0200

> apply to which interfaces.  No?

True, and we probably need to clarify that. In general, most
of the discussion in the draft relates to the cellular interface
only. If a supercomputer has a cellular interface, it doesn't
mean that it should suddenly start behaving like a cellular
host in other interfaces ;-)

(But I realize that you've been reading the mobility parts
which do talk about the multi-interface cases in order to explain
better how mobility should be used.)

Jari