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

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 03:28:06 -0500

And the last issue that I raised in my message:

>   >          - Making IPv6 autoconfiguration optional on hosts (rather
>   >                  than mandatory on hosts and turned on/off for the
>   >                  link in router advertisements)
>
>=> You mean 2462 shoud be a SHOULD/MUST? 
>That's possible for the generic cellular case, but for 3GPP, 
>since there is a separate 'autoconfig' mechanism, 
>this RFC is not needed. Would a SHOULD/MUST for the 
>general case, and a 'not needed' for 3GPP 
>be satisfactory?

My understanding is that the 3GPP group is actually migrating towards
a more standard IPv6 configuration mechanism, using router advertisements
and allowing hosts to generate their own interface IDs.

Currently the cellular hosts draft says:

"IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration [RFC-2462] MAY be 
supported."

However, I think that RFC 2462 should be a MUST for all IPv6 nodes.

There are probably other technical issues in the current draft that
should be discussed, I've just listed what I consider to be the most
pressing issues.

Margaret

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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 10:47:15 +0100

In your previous mail you wrote:

   
   
=> I agree but in order to avoid misunderstanding please make clear
that the MUST is for the support, not the use.

Thanks

[email-masked]