Subject: RE: Making Autoconfig Optional [Was RE: draft-ietf-ipv6-cellular- host-00.txt -> wg last call?]

From: "Karim El-Malki (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 11:34:15 +0100

> A way to solve your DAD/autoconf issue is to "delegate" the 
 > /64 prefix
 > and to keep only link-local addresses using link-layer negociated
 > interface IDs (negociation is very simple and just checks 
 > the interface
 > IDs of the both ends are different). The link has to be 
 > point-to-point
 > but this is the only constraint (you can even use PPP if you'd like).

That's exactly what we've pointed to in the 3gpp-advice draft and
this is what 3GPP is following. Currently PPP is used. So I think we
agree that 3gpp hosts need not do DAD, which explains the cellular
hosts requirement.

/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: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 11:58:13 +0100

=> so we agree. The only problem is we have to find a way to explain
that in a standard track document and to get rough consensus not only
for the idea but also for the way to specify it. I don't know
if the agenda is already closed (it should not): does someone ask
for a short slot in the next meeting agenda?

Regards

[email-masked]

PS: I'd like to get this (DAD considerations) for PPP in general.