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

From: "Karim El-Malki (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002 18:01:37 +0100

> >  > What happens when that host receives an NS message?
 > > 
 > > It won't because a cellular host /e.g. 3gpp) is alone on its link.
 > 
 > I don't see why this should necessarily be the case, unless
 > 3gpp is trying to treat IPv6 as a link layer.

No, it's just a normal point-to-point link as we discussed some mails
ago with Francis. There's only the router and the cellular host. Router
reachability can be handled using L2 information (possible in cellular links)
or through NUD. That's why NS/NAs are not strictly needed.
  
 > 
 > what if there are one or more hosts connected to the data interface
 > on a terminal, that want to communicate directly with applications
 > on the terminal?  the terminal will need to support ND to 
 > alow this to happen.
 
Agreed. But in the email I was considering a host which only has a
cellular interface.

/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: Ignatios Souvatzis <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 15:51:25 +0100

> or through NUD. That's why NS/NAs are not strictly needed.

Then this should be discussed in a "IPv6 over 3GPP point-to-point link"
document, as has been already suggested.

Regards
	-is